The last time the US increased the minimum wage (to $5.25) over protests from big business (claiming it would destroy SMALL business), the bill also included corporate tax credits and tax reliefs worth over $125 billion dollars for BIG business.

On one hand we have all the welfare queens (to use a favorite expression from the Regan era), living off of welfare, don't want to get a job, just lay around and have more kids. (Another convenient myth. The last time I saw figures, the average number of kids in a welfare family was 2.1. Non-welfare averaged 2.3).

And then we have corporate welfare. If big business really screws up, not due to market forces but their own unregulated greed, they are the first to demand that the government fix it. The Savings and Loan debacle was minimized by a very big government willing to step in and make good the excesses and outright fraud perpetrated by the Industry. And save a lot of people from the consequences of their own greed, come to that. Very few CEO's went to jail. A lot of middle and working class people lost a lot of money. The government helped get some of it back. There was a noticeable silence from the "on the dole" group over that. Is that any less welfare than food stamps?

The average CEO in Japan makes 10-12 times the average salary in his company and the US CEO makes 22-30 times the average(back in 1998 anyway). The average salary of a CEO increased by over 200% following a downsizing and the average CEO tenure following a downsizing was less than 18 months. And over the course of the next 5 years the performance of companies who did downsize suffered in comparison to the average growth rate. Still, there was all that lovely corporate welfare to ease the pain.

I would argue that the excesses and inequities of people "taking advantage" of the welfare system, pales in comparison to the excesses of corporate welfare. That the percentage of those "taking advantage of the system" is small. (Unless you feel that any welfare is wrong, of course). I would argue that a country where 20 million children live below the poverty level, with inadequate food, shelter and medical care is wrong because it is destructive of the foundation of society. If we, as a society, elevate whether a person is out there trying as being of higher value than a duty to provide for basic physical needs (by whatever means), there is a fundamental flaw in our thinking (IMO) that is inherently destructive of our social order.

Why is government welfare wrong. Because it isn't voluntary?. Neither is corporate welfare. Or the more subtle examples. Forget about food stamps and HUD housing and training programs. What about free public schools, public libraries, free roads, subsidized mass transit. Federal Deposit Insurance, state universities, student loans, the guaranteed minimum wage, federal pension insurance....ad infinitum?

The generality "Oh he/she could get a job if they really tried" is, essentially, an urban myth. The unemployment figures show a robust econony where anyone who wants to can succeed. These is a noticeable absence of figures on under-employment. Estimates on that range from 9-15%. Welfare in the pure sense (excluding medicare and social security) is a fraction of the dollars poured into corporate welfare. Why is it somehow wrong to keep feeding someone, even if they won't help themselves, when it isn't wrong to give big business massive tax breaks that allow the CEO's to get obscene salaries (even by the standards of their fellow capitalists.) and have a 12% rather than a 9% net profit margin?, even by the standards of their fellow capitalists.

Forget about food stamps and HUD housing and training programs. What about the less obvious forms of welfare? Free public schools, Libraries, free roads, subsidized mass transit. Federal Deposit Insurance. State universities. Student Loans. The generality "Oh he/she could get a job if they really tried" is, essentially, an urban myth. The unemployment figures show a robust economy where anyone who wants to can succeed. The underemployment figures are less comforting, ranging from 9% to as high as 20%.

Ad absurdum, is our society really better off if we let someone who won't help themselves (and their children) starve to death?

Regards John