“Conservatives define success by how few people need help from the government, not by how many people we can enroll in government programs.”
– Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
People must stop abusing the welfare system, proclaim four top leaders of the Trump Administration in a New York Times op-ed. “For able-bodied adults, welfare should be a short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout,” they wrote. It should be like a bridge over a difficult, short period in life. “For many, welfare is no longer a lifeline to self-sufficiency but a lifelong trap of dependency.” That must change, and we applaud such needed reforms.
Today the national budget is about $7 trillion, and roughly $1 trillion of it is spent on welfare programs. On top of that amount, various states and localities offer more welfare entitlements. Such growth in the welfare industry defines modern culture. “The shift from personal autonomy to dependence upon government is perhaps the defining characteristic of modern American politics,” writes Professor Charlotte A. Twight in Dependent on D.C.
Core Question: A Right to Welfare?
“Love thy neighbor” commands Holy Scripture (Leviticus 19:18; Mark 12:31). Since all agree that we must fulfill the command, core questions in this debate do not include personal obligation. Rather, this debate refers to the nature of welfare itself and the role of government. How a person answers those questions will be shaped in part by what political philosophers distinguish between two different types of rights:
• One right is “a right to be to left alone”: such as a right not to have your car damaged; not to have your life taken; not to have your earnings taken; not to have your body injured; and not to have your house robbed. These are good things. Philosophers call these negative rights because they lack or “subtract” harm; they respect proper boundaries.
• A second right, however, is “a right to acquire a good or service”: it means one believes he has a right to what someone else has, and it must be given to him, usually using government force as a middle-man. He believes he is entitled to some money or good. Such items often include funding for education, medical items, food stamps, subsided housing, unemployment payments, etc. Philosophers call these positive rights because they acquire or “add” some good or service.
The Religious Left as Pro-Welfare
Years ago in American history, it used to be scandalous and shameful to receive welfare; it was a sign of immaturity and a failure to be able to stand upon one’s own feet, so to speak, and to provide for one’s self. Today, however, the majority of people in America today support this second type of right to acquire a good or service, and so many people accept welfare money without shame.
Supporters say: “We should support our neighbors’ basic needs such as education and medical care. It is compassion in action. Force is necessary because people are greedy and will not give their money away to those who need it most. It is government’s job to care for the basic needs of those who cannot care for themselves.”
The Social Gospel advocates for such an approach. Professor Tony Campolo writes, “Declaring that there are more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice for those who are poor and oppressed, we promote legislation that turns biblical imperative into social policy.” Theologian Walter Rauschenbusch says a modern society needs a “socialized love” and “a new avatar of love,” and the new avatar of love is government’s power to redistribute wealth. In essence, the Social Gospel view supports a type of socialism (more or less). We might say it is “the Gospel of the Religious Left.”
Concerns with Welfare
Yet critics of welfare reply:
(1) Welfare is not biblical. Dr. Gary DeMar writes: “What Campolo needs to find in these 2,000 verses is one verse that gives authority to civil government to redistribute wealth. Campolo takes verses that are directed at individuals and turns them on their head and gives them a political twist.” In harmony, Joel McDurmon, author of God verses Socialism, says the Social Gospel advocates make “the unwarranted jump from the Bible’s mandate for personal compassion to socialistic government action.” Furthermore, no able-bodied person who refuses to work should receive money, even if the money is for basic needs such as food: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10b).
(2) Welfare is not ethical. Does anyone else have a right to the money you earn? This view answers No, and welfare means living off the money of someone else. Even worse, those who accept welfare have used the force of government to acquire the money for themselves. The government itself does not create wealth, and so it has nothing except for what it takes from others (taxes), prints, or borrows – and as part of acquiring the funds for welfare redistribution, the government keeps a portion of your money for itself, and thus the massive growth of the welfare industry exists today.
(3) Welfare is not relational. It lacks a depth of participating relationship. It lacks an element of moral and spiritual goods to address economic problems often rooted in a “poverty of soul,” as Marvin Olasky writes in The Tragedy of American Compassion. It is forced, impersonal “love” given from a faceless government bureaucracy in contrast to a person who cares deeply and personally for those in need and is involved in their lives. Only a person can give love. His book explains:
“Poverty fighters 100 years ago were more compassionate – in the literal meaning of ‘suffering with’ – than many of us are now. . . . Most significantly, they made moral demands on recipients of aid. They saw family, work, freedom, and faith as central to our being, not as life-style options. No one was allowed to eat and run. Some kind of honest labor was required of those who needed food or a place to sleep in return.”
Today, by contrast, welfare is an impersonal “delegated compassion” and “coerced silver,” says Olasky, and “as cold as the payment of taxes,” notes Alan Herrick. Welfare “redefines Jesus’ genuine, personal, volitional love for the poor as the same as their [liberalism’s] impersonal, coercive, compassionless welfare machinery,” writes Ann Coulter. Welfare undermines neighbor-love by trying to have “love without relationship.” It is presented in the name of “neighbor-love,” but without the participation of relationship that real love requires.
(4) Welfare creates smaller citizens. It does this in two ways: (a) Welfare undermines the desire to love thy neighbor. Dennis Prager asks, “Why take care of your fellow citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?” (See video below.) The larger the government encroaches upon actions that it should not be taking, one result is the smaller, underdeveloped moral character of the citizens. As President Grover Cleveland penned: “Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” (b) Additionally, such high taxation in order to fund the welfare state takes away one’s financial means to actually help people in our midst.
(5) Welfare is addicting. In the name of helping people, welfare actually hurts people. It shackles them to poverty, and it devalues their character. Dennis Prager writes:
For the majority of able-bodied people who get cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing, free or subsidized health insurance, and other welfare benefits, the thought of giving up any one of those and beginning to pay for them with their own earned money is as hard as giving up alcohol is for an alcoholic. Politicians know this, which is why it is close to impossible to ever reduce entitlements. And, of course, the Left knows this, which is why the Left almost always wins a debate over entitlements.
And: “This addiction ultimately ruins the character of many of its recipients, the economy of all the countries in which it exists in large numbers, and the value system that created the prosperity that made so many entitlements possible in the first place.”
(6) Welfare doesn’t solve poverty. Since Lyndon B. Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty” in 1964, some $20 trillion has been spent by way of more than a hundred programs at the national level, plus more state programs. (See video below.) Bob Pfeiffer notes: “While welfare has grown dramatically over the past 60 years, the poverty rate has remained flat. No amount of spending has made much of an impact. In good times and bad, a stubborn 10% of the population is in poverty.” See the red line (“Poverty Rate”) below in the second graphic, amidst a growth in welfare since 1964:
(7) Welfare is unconstitutional. One older view of modern welfare says that the US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to engage in welfare. It is not among its enumerated powers. The Founders demanded strict government-control via the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States [i.e., the federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Amendment aimed to limit the federal government to the listed powers and opposed government’s role as charity or caregiver. The main author of the Constitution, James Madison, said: “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government” (January 10, 1794).
What Is The Purpose of Government?
The four leaders of the Trump Administration who opined the NYT op-ed uphold the dignity of work. The four authors emphasized that their requirement “is not just about money.” “Work also provides purpose and dignity. It strengthens families and communities as it gives new life to start-ups and growing businesses,” they write. “It provides an example to our next generation.” Yes, the generational cycle of welfare must end, and with it, a new vision for us today about the role of government, which is actually an older view of government (see point #7 above).
We compliment the four authors because they also are touching upon a core issue: “What is the purpose of government, i.e., what is the role of force in society?” Historically, there have been three options. Government uses force to act as Care Giver (like a mother), Moral Tutor (like a father), or Protector of Basic Rights (like a body guard). Our Founders affirmed the third option — as Protector of Basic Rights, e.g., the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads in part: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” — but modern society has embraced the Care Giver role strongly, and the consequences follow logically.
For additional information on how welfare specifically relates to Washington State’s homeless, here is our FPIW article: “Why the Homeless Crisis is Only Getting Worse.”
###
Join our team of Defenders and advocate for your values in the public square! If you’re passionate about creating change in Washington, please join us. Learn more about our issues in our Issues Booklet. To make a tax-deductible donation to FPIW, please click here. You can also make a donation to FPIW Action (not tax-deductible) by clicking here. FPIW Action is a 501(c)(4) organization that allows us to speak out more freely on political issues. Your small monthly donation of $10 or $25 can make a significant difference in helping to defend Washington State. Thank you!
