From Little Acorns Will Grow a Mighty Government Bureaucracy: The Tree Gap by ROBERT WEISSBERG
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/from-little-acorns-will-grow-a-mighty-government-bureaucracy-the-tree-gap?f=puball
Today’s radical egalitarians are a devious and relentless bunch. Their strategy starts with uncovering a “troubling inequality” and once found, they demand that government close the “unfair” gap. Discovery by discovery, program by program, radical egalitarians create bloated tax-eating government bureaucracies inimical to freedom.
Combating this egalitarian game requires being alert to the seemingly inconsequential first discovery and the seductive cure for the alleged unfairness. Yes, the proposed cure for some heretofore unnoticed gap may seem inconsequential, but do not be deceived. Most of today’s most out-of-control polities began innocuously. Think affirmative action, hyper environmentalism, exploding food stamp use, and mindless gender equality in collegiate sports, among many others that were hardly noticed when first conceived. Recall the horrific consequences when egalitarians discovered that whites were more likely than minorities to own homes, so banks lowered lending requirements to close this gap.
Today’s example comes from a recent Washington Post story about how poor sections of the Washington DC area have far fewer trees compared to rich neighborhoods. According to the story, rich people are disproportionately more likely to be homeowners and either plant trees themselves or successfully lobby government to plant trees nearby.
Why do the rich but not the poor love trees? The answer seems obvious: the rich are better educated and therefore recognize that planting trees cut atmospheric pollution, lowers mental stress, save energy by shading homes, reduces storm water run-off while increasing property values. Oddly, nothing is said about how rich people appreciate raking leaves, occasional bird droppings, picking up dead branches, having trees fall on houses or power lines, treed cats and children, sources of car accidents and paying thousands to cut down dying trees.
And while local non-profits often strive to overcome the economically related tree-gap, it is an uphill struggle–trees planted in poor neighborhood fail to receive adequate care (e.g., watering, pruning, treating for diseases) and often die from neglect.
There you have it: the latest rich/poor gap has now been exposed and, make no mistake, the gap is important and therefore must be closed since trees help the environment, reduce stress, prevent flooding and otherwise benefit humanity.
Now, how can a cold-hearted, conservative Scrooge respond when confronted with this troubling, unhealthy tree gap? Surely he cannot deny the poor equal protection of shade. Shame!!
This question is not easily dismissed for without a convincing rejoinder. I can almost guarantee that this “tree gap” will mature from a tiny Acorn community action group to a mighty tax-eating bureaucratic oak. I can already see the creation of a government agency to assist environmentally “under-served” populations, a corps of arborists, assorted “how-to” manuals written in seven languages plus yearly progress reports. Sympathetic legal activists will even discover a “right” to “environmental justice” which means, of course, everyone must have equal access to trees. And don’t forget programs to monitor diversity, inclusion and cultural sensitivity. With time, this office of urban forestry may have branches in all major cities with under-served populations.
Given those costly possibilities, let me offer some suggestions to kill this program (and similar ones) before it takes root.
First, frankly acknowledge having lush vegetation in wealthy neighborhoods but not in poor ones is not invidious discrimination or a problem demanding government intervention. Don’t allow radical egalitarians to define the problem. This gap just reflects local preferences and just as there are upscale New York City localities with hardly any trees, flat broke Appalachian hillbillies live in forests. It can also be argued that given the cost of planting and maintenance, plentiful trees are a luxury good, no different than upscale locales enjoying European style bistros with $7.00 lattes and fresh croissants.
Even better, why must we assume that planting more trees and then paying for upkeep is a high priority among poor residents? Who gave outsiders the right to determine local tastes? This is misguided noblesse oblige.
Then there’s opportunity costs-a dollar spend on a tree is one dollar less for something else and not even the federal government can pay for everything. I’d guess that given a choice, most poor folk prefer improved police protection, better schools, more timely trash removal, more convenient public transportation, or access to free Wi-Fi. They might, heaven forbid, even choose to lower taxes.
And why can’t residents of poor neighborhoods plant and care for their own trees? The task is hardly rocket science. Must government do what the poor can easily do for themselves if they really wanted trees? In fact, it is arguable that if locals planted trees and with their own money the trees would receive better care than if Uncle Sam planted them. Indeed, autonomously working together to plan and maintain trees sans paternalistic government help might be a vital step in strengthening community bonds whose dividend might be combating crime, vandalism, drug dealing and countless other destructive pathologies.
Put more generally, endless government intervention-regardless of lofty aim-helps inculcate yet more dependency in localities where self-help is desperately needed. Surely residents on their own initiative can buy saplings and learn how to maintain them. After all, we are talking about adults, not children.
The call for more trees in poor areas might sound inconsequential, but it is emblematic of the ongoing and relentless push toward paternalism. A century ago who could have possibly envisioned entire neighborhoods (even cities!) totally dependent on government handouts for housing, food, childcare and medical care all the while recipients did zero in return? Who would have predicted children eating most of their meals in school? Imagine a mere decade back being told that poor people would soon receive free government supplied cell phones and lots of fee minutes while their paper food stamps would be converted into government issued credit card-like instruments (the EBT card) to withdraw “free” on-the-spot cash from ATM’s? Ha Ha, surely you jest, would have been the likely response.
Put it this way. America’s burgeoning slide into dependency hardly happened overnight and much of it was barely noticed when it began. Perhaps it is irreversible but at least we can recognize the formula. An old expression warns us of Greeks bearing gifts; today, the expression should be beware of well-intentioned folk uncovering “unfair” gaps. I cannot think of a single gap that has been closed but the deficits and bloated bureaucracies are forever.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Robert Weissberg is emeritus professor of political science, University of Illinois-Urbana and currently an adjunct instructor at New York University Department of Politics (graduate). He has written many books, the most recent being: The Limits of Civic Activism, Pernicious Tolerance: How teaching to “accept differences” undermines civil society and Bad Students, Not Bad Schools. Besides writing for professional journals, he has also written for magazines like the Weekly Standard and currently contributes to various blogs.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/from-little-acorns-will-grow-a-mighty-government-bureaucracy-the-tree-gap?f=puball#ixzz2S86b5LJS
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Comments are closed.
