Are You Worth Saving?

I wasn’t going to do it, but I have to. The ridiculousness of the public perception of government programs and publicly funded programs has finally pushed me to the edge. Newsweek’s Article, “A Mountain of Bills” discusses the high costs of rescue operations; this is a conversation that has been sparked following the search for the missing climbers on Mt. Hood. Apparently it costs a lot to mount a search and rescue operation; there are helicopter costs, specialist costs, and *gasp* overtime costs. Well heaven forbid.

My question, and the only one I feel actually matters, is: are we really not going to put forth our best efforts to save/help people because it costs too much? Really? (That second really is part of the first question--honest.)

Obviously a search and rescue operation on a mountain is going to cost money. It cannot, realistically, be done all volunteer. Do any of us actually have a problem with making sure rangers are employed, their stations stocked, helicopters available, and orientations for mountain climbers provided? If you do you are the Grinch who made pre-Christmas ghost Scrooge look cheerful. And that argument is ridiculous outside of a fascist state so we won’t consider it here.

But, the only option for finding money for programs such as these is through taxes and all one has to do is say “taxes” and everybody gets flibbertigibbeted. That’s right. I said flibbertigibbeted cause that’s what it is. The social contract, the one we agree to live by when we make a conscious decision to be part of the American community and the one we vote on every election includes taxes. It can’t NOT include taxes. The government, so long as we chose to have one, must find money somewhere and we, the people, agree to pay money for the government to use--as it sees fit until we use our power to change the spending--our money. Now, there are any number of things we can argue about so far as how our money should be spent and I’m not going to do that because that’s not what I’m talking about here. The only premise that needs be accepted is that we should pay the government some amount of money so that it might function.

Keep in mind if you say “no” you better be very, very sure you understand what that means (and then let me know because I would be happy to consider that idea elsewhere).

Moving on, what on earth should our money be spent on except, oh I don’t know, making sure the citizens and peoples of our country aren’t on their own? We can’t not allow people to climb mountains (we could, but again, go look up fascist) and we can’t inject GPS locators onto their body (someone suggested that in the comments, I kid you not, go read a dystopian book) so in order to walk that fine line between life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (it really is that one that is the sticking point in so many things) we have to accept that sometimes people pursue happiness in dangerous ways. Does it not behoove us to provide safety nets where possible? Do we really want to run a country where the only people you can turn to for help are your friends and family? Getting robbed? Can’t call the police! Call Mom! That idea is so ridiculous I have heartburn.

And I’m not saying these ranger programs are perfect; certainly how much money, the way the money is being spent, and every other nitpicky thing would be watched as the government watches all of its money (another topic I refuse to be sidetracked by) but the thing that makes this situation different from PBS or Art Grants or any of the other myriad of programs that people debate over, is that this is specifically about saving lives. Seriously. We’re not paying rangers to play lumberjack. Is a ranger station not an important thing to have? Why not? Because you’re never going to be on a mountain, therefore it doesn’t require thought, care, or funding?

That was the thinking of some of the comments and it is that close-sightedness, the inability to think outside of their own little world, the sheer selfishness, violently protected selfishness, that irritates me and causes an article like this to be written. Hate is louder so policies and conversations keep getting had based on the noise the hateful people make. The problem, of course, is that you can’t exactly be an angry non-hater. But we could be loud non-haters if more of us, instead of screaming back at them, would simply say “that is unacceptable” and ignore them. But that definitely is a topic for another day.

In meantime, go find some gosh darn hikers!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/227009?GT1=43002