Good Welfare, Bad Welfare

(It is not the author’s intent to defame the genuinely needy. The following addresses the problems with the federally operated U.S. welfare system in general and abuses to it.)

To the tune of $1 trillion dollars annually, Americans provide welfare benefits to other Americans. The number of people on welfare now exceeds the number of workers in eleven states*, as dependence on government explodes. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), of the Senate Budget Committee, explains, “Converted to cash, we spend enough on federal welfare to mail every household living beneath the poverty line a check for $60,000 each year. Can anyone honestly say this huge sum of money is being wisely and effectively spent, that no improvements are needed?” What’s worse, while a staggering 50 million people now live below the poverty line, the Senate Budget Committee projects that welfare costs will almost double in the next ten years.

We give welfare to many who could provide for themselves. We do not require that funds be wisely spent, make little attempt to be sure recipients are genuinely needy, and have few checks to prevent fraud in the system. We make people dependent; we take from the productive and give to the unproductive, abusing both in the process. Our welfare system is unwise, ineffective, and wasteful.

It has not always been so.

Colonial America based its charitable assistance on biblical commandments to care for the fatherless, the widows and the needy. Charity came from those who recognized their Christian responsibility to give: churches, individuals, and organizations created to meet the needs of the indigent. Thousands of viable charities, scattered through all the major cities and manned almost solely by volunteers, cared for the needy. Along with assistance, recipients were taught frugality, industry and piety. Government was not involved; our Constitution does not delegate care of the needy to the political system. Government involvement came gradually, beginning in the late 1800s, from those we would call liberal progressives today. As government usurped this duty, individuals and churches backed away from their responsibilities.

Marvin Olasky, in his excellent book, “The Tragedy of American Compassion”, exhaustively details the success and wisdom of colonial charity, recognized by the fortunate as their responsibility before God. He explains that Americans were deeply compassionate when compassion was given voluntarily, rather than by compulsion. For hundreds of years, charitable institutions and individuals generously donated volunteer goods and labor. Women’s groups made supplies for the poor, shelters took in the needy, churches sought out members who were struggling in order to assist them.

Help was personal and immediate, rarely given as cash, which could be unwisely used. Conditions were attached--the obligation to use gifted resources wisely. Those with means supervised, taught, and counseled those they gave assistance to. Waste and laziness were met with loving reproof and, if necessary, temporary withdrawal of benefits to “school” the recipients. In was generally understood that help unwisely given spoiled people, making them lazy and irresponsible. One who gave assistance unwisely was considered irresponsible, himself.

Work tests were common: if a man requested food and a bed at a local relief house he was directed to the work box, filled with logs to be split. A few hours labor earned a meal and a night’s lodging. The truly needy worked; those wanting a free handout rarely did. The split logs went to those in need who were too feeble or old to split their own wood.

Women raising children without husbands were taught skills to provide for themselves—considered a mark of self respect. Relatives members were the first line of defense for the needy, but if none were available a family would be asked by their church to take the elderly, the infirm, the orphan into its home for care. A modest monthly stipend, paid by donations to the church, was provided. A compassionate Christian society did not leave the needy without care. Early America was remarkably compassionate—unique for the amount of service donated freely, without reimbursement.

When government began compulsory compassion, taxing us to give welfare to others, Americans tightened their charitable purse strings. Compassion became impersonal—the giving of a check rather than time and attention. Massive bureaucracies evolved to distribute unsupervised money given indiscriminately to those who claimed need, whether legitimate or not. Repayment was not required, creating a disconnect in the minds of recipients about their responsibility to help themselves.

Today’s welfare programs rarely encourage self sufficiency. The success of the program is measured by the number receiving help, not the number becoming self sufficient through help. Third and fourth generation welfare recipients are common among those who believe one needn’t work—he is entitled to goods. Government has become “daddy” to fatherless families, providing what the man of the house used to provide.

Huge industries have arisen to drain off resources intended for the poor—social services, bureaucrats, vendors of every hue and cry, and a host of others, all feeding at the federal welfare table. Little actually reaches the poor; special interests have discovered there’s money in helping the welfare state extend its reach. Government has expanded the definition of “poverty” to include more people and now advertises to increase welfare enrollment. One-third of Americans now receive some form of government assistance. Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the welfare state with the New Deal in the 1930s and Lyndon B Johnson expanded it in 1964. Welfare spending today is 16 times greater than in 1964. The number of people on food stamps has almost tripled since 2000.

Our welfare state skews the political process. Those providing the most “goodies” to the people are more often elected. Freedom, politics, and government are now for sale in the welfare marketplace. Historians tell us this is the exact system that brought down ancient Rome, one of the most powerful civilizations to grace our planet.

From almost every perspective, our system is fraudulent. It harms the giver by forcing him to donate, taking away his freedom of choice. It harms the recipient by destroying individual independence, convincing him he cannot provide for himself. It harms the administrator by making fraud easy—a temptation many give in to. It is now deemed discriminatory to expect those requesting assistance to demonstrate their need. We give, regardless,  in a system that encourages and rewards deception. The salaried fill their cupboards with free food from food banks along with the deserving because there are no checks on the system. As a society, we actively teach our members that they need not work—that personal initiative is not connected to personal circumstances. This mentality simple cannot sustain itself.

How do we fix this broken system? Sometimes “helping” people hurts them and we have fallen into that trap. The best welfare plan is not a government plan, it is a strong growing economy—the only path to overcome poverty and diminish out staggering welfare state. We return to our original Constitution, with its honest money system and strong, responsible states who direct assistance at a local level where it can be supervised. With limited, wise government that is kept close to the people, we free businesses of excessive regulations and taxes to bring jobs back to America and put people back to work.

Compassionate citizens, motivated by genuine tenderness cultivated in a moral economic and government system, will resume the charitable activities that made America’s brand of help for the needy exemplary. We can then practice wise welfare.

*California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Hawaii. In California, there are 139 “takers” for every 100 workers. Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011513-640693-welfare-spending-up-80-percent-10-years

 

- Pam