Ok, yes, it is a tax. But it does differ considerably from other tax revenue in that it goes into a trust fund and not the general coffers. Maybe you should go to talk to some widows or other seniors who need this money (their money) to survive. I think you might get a very different opinion and perspective on the value of Social Security. Or are they freeloading, too?! Should they just get jobs? Or maybe they should have saved when they were younger and its their fault if they are old and poor? Yes, it is a tax taken out of your paycheck. But unlike other taxes in which the government decides how best to spend it, it will be there for you (again, ostensibly) when you retire at which point you can spend it how you wish. I personally do not have a problem with paying FICA as I recognize the benefit for me and others. That’s just my opinion.
Can you in all honestly tell me the system is not broken? And yes, it is still a tax. I know people who need SSI to survive and they resent the government for leading them to believe that it would be sufficient. But then again, the first person who got SSI after retirement put in something like $24 and received over $22,000 since she lived to be 100. There are better ways of dealing with retirement than SSI. Where did all that additional money come from? It is not a sustainable program. I have zero faith that it will be there when I retire so I am making sure that I have other investments in hand for when that day comes around.
If it is so great, why doesn't Congress participate?
I personally feel a state by state educational standards scenario would be a huge detriment to the national economy. We are a big country and when a company needs to hire talent, it has the advantage of drawing from the entire population. This is in part because we enjoy a great deal of mobility (its not so easy to move from one region to another in many countries) and because there is a base educational standard we all share. If done state by state, you could, over time, begin to see some great disparity between basic skills and knowledge. Think of the states where those with Evangelical viewpoints are working to eliminate the teaching of evolution and replacing it with Creationism. What about sex education? As it is, federal standards in education are part of what keeps these places from slipping into backwaters of ignorance. Its also what ensures that a top student in Michigan can compete in the national job market with one from California.
I won’t even touch healthcare, suffice to say that my position is that we are in the situation we are with respect to affordable coverage precisely because it has been private up to now.
You can feel anyway you want, but there is no question that the government run public school system is slipping further and further behind. Competition is a good thing for schools and it will give people particular options when they want their kids to have a particular type of education. We decided to home school because we see the curriculum in schools today and think it is a pathetic joke. We know the teachers can teach to higher standards but the government holds them back.
Is an inordinate amount of tax money really being used to help people lose money or weight, eat better or live longer?! Personally I think assistance programs to link employers with workers is a good thing and I also take a more compassionate viewpoint in relation to drug addiction. Remember that one of the government’s roles is to “promote the general welfare.” I would think promoting healthy living (and I agree that the school lunch situation needs to be revamped – but scrap it altogether? No) falls in that category when you have so many diet related problems. Promotion (or propaganda if you prefer) is a tried and true strategy of most any government to shape public opinion on subjects that require national coordination. Loose Lips Sink Ships! Grow a Victory Garden! And so on. Its also important to consider that every company operating in this country is releasing their own propaganda (called advertising). In my mind, PSAs and government programs to promote healthy lifestyles is simply an effort to counter skewed information (that good looking person is eating Church’s Chicken – maybe I should too!) with real data about decisions that impact peoples’ lives and well-being.
The concept of "Promote General Welfare" was warped after the Butler v. United States v. case in 1936. The case actually redefined it. Before that, was a check and balance on what congress could spend money on. There was 20 things that congress could spend money on and they had to be benefit the whole nation equally. After that, it was only what they felt was 'good' for the country, regardless of equity.
As for PSAs, that is a joke right? Some of what you think of PSAs are government, but many others are paid for by the national associations of what ever. For example, the Got Milk campaign was paid for by the National Dairy Association, which has ties into the FDA and the Dept of Ag. They also now put sugar into the milk that that is served with school lunches and has the same amount of sugar as an average can of soda. National advertisers shape media perception based on the needs of corporations which control lobbiest groups that control elected officials, this dictating public policy and establishing laws that work against small businesses. For example, the Dept of Ag has repeatedly harrased and shut down small farm operations, often without justification, because they were too damaging to larger corporate producers in the the area. That is the result of the current definition of general welfare.
I have a very hard time equating something like WIC assistance to giving an addict a hit or an alcoholic a drink. Unless you consider food an addiction (not that there aren’t food addictions…). As I said before, sure there are abuses of the system with respect to government assistance, but cutting people loose at a time when there aren’t jobs just seems cruel and heartless. Your anecdotal examples of situations where people can’t pass drug tests to get jobs or are too reticent because they would make less than the assistance they receive (in which case I would question either the minimum wage or the pay scale of that job – government assistance is not a lot of money…) are unconvincing to me on a national scale. I would need to see compelling evidence about the extent of such abuses or problems to come to the conclusion that these programs need to be scrapped.
WIC in itself is a good thing. But I find it amazing the amount of crap you can buy with WIC. Have you seen the list? Most of it is hyper processed sugar laden crap like frosted mini-wheats... but they claim that you can have stuff with added sugar. I have personally seen someone buy all sorts of liquor with cash, and a bunch of food with a WIC card.
Then there are all the people who are not on WIC like most of the homeless people that frequent a liquor store by my house. I had not been in there in quite some time and we needed a few little things (paper plates, napkins and such) so I went in there. I was the only person not buying large cans of beer. It was 9:30 am on a Saturday. There is a homeless camp set up not too far from the City and almost every one of these people is on some sort of government assistance, and almost every one of them has some type of substance abuse. But the government refuses to require drug screening.
Again, I generally tend toward the position of assessment and modification of existing programs over throwing the baby out with the bathwater (or upsetting the applecart, if you prefer) That’s like being an inventor and quitting on your prototype before you have troubleshot it. Or giving your child away the first time they misbehave. Society and life in general is a work in progress and while there are times when starting fresh or scrapping an approach is merited, in general, careful, thoughtful changes over time seems to me the more responsible and sensible approach. Otherwise, you may create more problems than you solve.
If this were a perfect world and people acted like inventions, then yes, you could tweek it to find perfection. But people are not inventions and they act differently. But when a failed system continues to fail over and over again, you need to transition out of it and into something better. And you are right, sometimes getting rid of one thing in place of another does create more problems than it solves. Most of the time when the federal government gets rid of private sector and free market, it creates more problems that it solves.
Once again, if the programs are so wonderful, why are those in Washington not part of the SSI or health care plans?
)... but having a blueprint for how the money is used is still essential. I am not someone who generally thinks that the government is awful and can't use money efficiently... but I do think there needs to be more accountability and transparency in where money is going. 
