The Dangers Of Social Welfare
Essay Preview: The Dangers Of Social Welfare
Report this essay
Whats Going On? Why Isnt the Government Taking Care of Me?
At what point in time did society start accepting the idea that it is the job of the Federal government to take care of the underprivileged? In the time since the war on poverty began over 80 separate government aid programs have been developed costing taxpayers $585 billion a year (Haskins et al. A13). The longer these programs stay in place, the more difficult it will be for Americans to escape living in the paradigm that they are necessary. When asked if the government should be responsible for administering welfare and other aid programs, most Americans would likely say “of course.” But ask those same people if they had an extra thousand dollars to give away if they would give it to the government to disperse as it sees fit or if they would give it to a private charity, the answer would probably be different. When this country was created, our founding fathers designed a system of government that was intended to serve the people, but after 231 years, with bill after bill passed, it has come to be a government which serves only itself. With the national debt growing year after year, it is obvious that politicians are no longer able to be trusted with our money. They spend recklessly, having been consumed by special interest groups and have forgotten about the people that they took an oath to serve. Every bill that is passed to supposedly help the underprivileged serves only as a mechanism to gain votes with no hope of reducing poverty. It is time this power was taken away from politicians and put back in the hands of those who are truly interested in helping the needy.
The Libertarian Party believes it is time for a new approach to fighting poverty. It is a program based on opportunity, work, and individual responsibility. In a libertarian society, the truly needy will have more resources and funding available to them then under current policy. This money will come from eliminating taxation collection costs, reducing the amount spent on bureaucrat salaries and getting people back to work (Ruwart). “Government run public welfare gives over two thirds of every dollar received to overhead (i.e. salaries of bureaucrats who administer the program) [as opposed to] private charities [who, on average], give over two thirds of every dollar to those who need help “(Ruwart). This means that at least twice as much money would be available if welfare were left up to private charities without even taking into account the cost of tax collection, which is also substantial. Charity in itself is a very profitable business in this country. This makes it almost impossible for the Government to ever reach the poorest and neediest who happen to also be very weak politically. These individuals are unlikely to be the focus of compensation efforts during reform since the government will direct most public resources at more vocal and organized groups, even if they are less needy. Once again, it comes down to dollars for votes.
“If the politicians really wanted to help poor people, they long ago would have done what it is in their direct power to do; namely, eliminate all the ways that government blocks people from climbing out of poverty”(Richman). Sheldon Richman, the senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, also points out that Government imposes taxes, import tariffs, as well as high costs for business licenses, which prevent many people from pursuing certain careers. They also control the monetary system and the minimum wage, which cause businesses to eliminate certain positions in order to cut costs. These things make people on government aid much more hopeless about getting off of it and foster dependency.
Politicians, such as John Edwards, who is currently running for president, focus their campaigns on appealing to the interests of the poor by using terms like “two Americas.” We are constantly bombarded with claims of the growing income gap between the rich and the poor. Who cares? Anybody who wakes up and thinks, “I wonder if Ive closed the gap between me and Bill Gates” is just entirely too consumed with envy. Besides, the income gap will naturally continue to grow. If the richest people increase their earnings by one percent and the poorest by 20%, the gap will still be getting bigger. What politicians and the media fail to mention is that incomes are rising at all levels in society. In fact, “the lowest fifth, the poorest in this country, had the fastest earning rate over the last 15 years” (Gaining Ground). The inflation-adjusted income for low-income families in 2005 represented a 35% growth since the early nineties (Gaining ground).
So why do social programs continue to be a big issue during elections? H.L. Mencken once said, “Every election is sort of an advanced auction sale of stolen goods.” (qtd in Rudisail). Personal freedom is no longer the main consideration in most peoples votes, but rather for “their share of other peoples assets. “We live in a community that honors egalitarianism, and denounces individuality” (Rudisail). Once people are convinced that it is ok to accept tax-financed charity, they are ever so quick to line up and get “their share”: After all, since the money’s there anyway; if one person doesn’t take it, somebody else will. But that creates yet another problem. The government has a lot of power, but it is still restricted as to how much money it can take. It can’t fulfill every wish and need. So there must be criteria. Government programs spell out qualifications to determine who may and may not get on the dole. In a sense, the rules set up a game: Who Wants to Be a Welfare Beneficiary?
These rules may be reasonable, but are not impenetrable. When people decide they want something, they will usually find a way to get it. A study performed found that an estimated 1/3 of all welfare recipients nationally violate one or more of the guidelines set forth. The same study found that “the processes of the welfare system make it easier, simpler or quicker to give incorrect or less than complete information or to leave unchanged information, which is no longer correct” (Hill et al. 152). Hundreds of recipients are assigned to each caseworker, which makes it impossible for them to investigate each case. In fact, “caseworkers see little to be gained from investigation of fraud because most recipients who are found guilty of fraud remain on welfare, with only a small reduction in benefits to reimburse the state.” (Hill et al. 152-153)
In addition to this, the government offers little incentive to get off the dole. Findings show that poor women who want medical coverage are