San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Monday, January 4, 2016

Your Disability Does Not Give You A Right To My Money

One of the things stupid arm-chair theologians like to ask is, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"  That question is usually asked as a type of concealed complaint against the God of the Bible.  The hidden expectation is that God exists to make people happy and whenever someone is not happy, especially as a result of some "bad thing" happening to him, God is somehow negligent in His duty towards mankind.   There is a hidden presupposition in the question as well.  Have you figured it out?  The question assumes that men are basically good.  That is a fatal assumption.
From the perspective of the God of the Bible the above question is incorrect.  A proper way to frame the question would be more like this, "Why do good things happen to bad people?"  The Bible teaches, and evangelical Christians generally ignore or deny, that men are guilty of sin, both actual and original.  As a result, no one is morally good, not even one.  None seek after God, not even one.  Everything every person does is tainted with sin and displeasing to the holy and morally perfect God of the Bible.  The amazing thing about life is not that bad things happen to good people.  The amazing thing about life is that any good things ever happen to anyone.  If God decided to deal with mankind exclusively according to our sin, everything that happens to us would be bad, all the time.  We deserve nothing but judgment and yet God graciously brings good things into our lives.  That is what is truly amazing.
I mention all of this as an introduction to today's topic.  Mental and physical disabilities are generally considered to be bad things.  When a couple gives birth to a mentally or physically retarded child I believe it is fair to say most people consider that to be a bad thing.  For many people the potential for a mentally or physically retarded child is considered to be so bad they will take the extreme position that it is better to murder that child via an abortive procedure than allow it to see the light of day.  I don't think that would be the position of the child, if his or her position could be ascertained, but it is certainly the position of many parents.
There was an article in the Denver Post a week or so ago that, according to another article in the same newspaper yesterday, said, "A recent Denver audit found Rocky Mountain Human Services, a nonprofit that manages therapy and respite care for Denver children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, misused millions of dollars.  The agency spent $48,000 ordering food for staff meetings, reimbursed its 250 member staff for home Internet services, provided workers Costco memberships and overcharged the city $650,000 for administrative expenses.  Former chief executive Stephen Block received $478,974 in pay and benefits in 2014...Meanwhile, families say their children are left on wait lists for years or told their benefits capped out."
Now that is a shocking news story. How is it possible that a government agency, staffed with people who have committed themselves to never making a profit and always behaving altruistically, could be guilty of such blatant theft of taxpayer funds?  I thought all government employees were moral?  How could they have become corrupt if they were not seeking a profit?  Despite my utter inability to conceive how government employees could ever behave immorally the fact remains that they have.
What caught my attention today was not the immoral behavior of government employees, it was the response to that news by people on the receiving end of taxpayer funds because they happen to have children that are mentally or physically retarded.  The article in the paper began by telling me that, "Parents of children with disabilities, empowered by a recent city audit that uncovered shameful misspending of taxpayer money, demanded new laws Thursday and a state investigation into the community boards that manage their children's services."  Well that sounds like a wonderful idea. A branch of government is rife with corruption so let's create a new branch of government and charge it with oversight of the corrupt branch.  Then, let's give that branch all sorts of new powers and plenty of taxpayer dollars.  I can't see how anything bad could ever be the result of that plan, can you?
What bothers me the most about this entire situation is the response of the parents with disabled children.  The article said, "...parents held signs and pushed their young or adult children in wheelchairs as they vowed to fight for action ahead of the legislature's return in January."  One parent was quoted as saying, "We are absolutely determined not to stop until there is reform in the system.  Our concerns are real.  They are legitimate.  They are documented."  Well there you have it.  Because parents with retarded children have "real, legitimate and documented concerns" it necessarily follows that they have a moral claim on some of my money.  Now how did that happen?
All of this got me to thinking....what criteria is used to determine who qualifies to receive taxpayer funds and who does not?  If there is a continuum of one to one hundred along the scale of physical or mental retardation, at what number along that continuum does a person become allowed to steal some of my money and use it to pay for his kid's medical care?  I think it is only fair to determine what that number is and then announce it to all people who live in the geo-political zone where these funds are being taken from taxpayers and given to a politically preferred class of people.  Indeed, once I know what that number is I am sure I can get above or below it, depending upon  how it is measured, and get myself qualified to receive taxpayer support.  After all, as a Welshman I have dozens of real, legitimate and documented concerns!
I want to start 2016 off right.  I want to make it clear to the three or four people who read this blog that theft is always theft, even if it is conducted by majority vote.  No person has a right to my money because he has a retarded child.  I have no moral responsibility whatsoever to pay for the care of the retarded child of any other person but my own.  Any attempt to force one person, or a group of people like the amorphous "rich,"  to pay the expenses associated with a retarded child of another person is immoral.  Since the great majority of what goes on in this envy-filled country comes down to forcing one group of people to pay the freight for another group that has political power I conclude that the great majority of what takes place in this country is immoral.  God will not be mocked and immorality will not be tolerated forever.
I have a question for those who call evil good.   Why is your physical or mental disability the only reason to take my money?  How about your home size or number of cars?  Certainly every person is entitled to a home of a certain minimum square feet.  And it is most certainly true that everyone should have access to a functional automobile.  Those who do not have these necessities should be permitted to use the taxes paid by the "rich," whoever they are, to finance their needs.  After all, you already take my money to pay for your kids school, your daughter's abortion, your health insurance and the imperialistic expansion of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika you love so much.  What is a little more to a rich guy who cannot defend himself from the majority?

No comments:

Post a Comment