This welfare discussion may be dragging on a bit, but I wanted to quickly share this study. It is a few years old but it shows that in the late 1990's and early 2000's the number of families receiving welfare decreased by about half, that the percent of families on welfare dropped precipitously to about two percent, that poverty rates are falling (though it looks like they ticked up again during the Bush years), and that for a few decades in the 70's through 90's the rate of Americans on welfare essentially held steady. It also shows a rough, but not absolute, correlation between unemployment rates and rate of Americans on welfare.
If I understand the conservative argument correctly, part of it relies on the fact that by providing welfare to the poor we are creating a "Nanny State" in which the incentive to work is diminished and more people will rely on welfare. But if we were creating a welfare state that incentivized laziness shouldn't we see welfare rates rising instead of falling? Welfare rates had previously held steady for decades. Wouldn't conservatives expect that number to rise steadily?
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of Americans are willing to work and do not want to be on welfare. Those on welfare are looking for and finding work. The welfare program actually helps families work their way out of poverty. There is a certain small percentage (we're talking less than 1%) of Americans that rely on the welfare system instead of personal responsibility, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Much of the progress came as a result of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a bi-partisan effort signed into law by Pres. Clinton. That act required more personal responsibility from welfare recipients and funded programs to help families get out of poverty.
Nobody, liberals and conservatives alike, wants their money going to welfare abusers. Everybody, liberals and conservatives alike, wants fewer people in poverty and fewer people in the welfare system. We all have faith in the American people to work if they can and support themselves. Our welfare system appears to positively influence all of these things by providing a useful social safety net. So, far from creating a Nanny State, our welfare system seems to be at least useful, at most successful.
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Monday, April 20, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Supporting the Welfare System, Part II: A Gospel Argument
Part I, the public policy argument for supporting the welfare system, is found here.
This is not going to be an argument that the Gospel requires us to support the federal welfare system. This is going to be an argument that it is perfectly in line with Gospel teachings to support a welfare system that aids the poor and needy, even if there are those that abuse the system, and that the typical criticisms of that system are not based on Gospel principles. There is no better place to start than with a lengthy excerpt from King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 4:
Two more important things. One is that, in that classic Gospel irony that comes up all the time, when we help the poor and needy it is really ourselves that receive the benefit. Every single disadvantaged person that we help could be completely unworthy in every way of our money, from wasting away what we give on frivolities to being mean and uncharitable to others and the like, and it would still be the commandment to give because it is more about us than about them. It is about us "retaining a remission of [our] sins" and "walking guiltless before God." It is about us learning to part with our material possessions in order to learn to be more Christ-like.
Two, and finally, that last verse about running faster than we have strength and doing all things in order is often taken out of context and quoted on its own, unconnected with its context of giving to the poor. It is still useful out of context to be applied to many situations, but we forget that it is specifically given in regards to our charitable work. The problem of the poor and poverty is way too far-reaching and complex to dealt with on an individual basis. In order to be as efficient as possible, and touch the most lives possible, there needs to be organization. The government, as noted in Part I, uses about one quarter of one percent of your income (one percent of the federal budget) to help millions in poverty through welfare. There is still plenty left over to donate to fast offerings, other charities, or individuals that need help if you would like. But the government welfare system is one particular way to do charitable work in orderliness.
But, of course, the scriptural mandate to help the poor doesn't stop there. Here is a representative list of scriptures that encourage us to care for the poor and needy, among dozens more not linked here:
Alma 1:27
Luke 18:20-24
Doctrine and Covenants 42:30-31
Doctrine and Covenants 56:16-19
James 2:16-19
1 Samuel 2:7-8
Alma 4:12-13
Mormon 8:37-39
Deuteronomy 15:7-11
Alma 34:28-29
Doctrine and Covenants 124:75
Here is a list of scriptures that condemns the poor to their own devices because there are some unworthy among them, requires that the poor get serious and start becoming more self-sufficient, makes the poor feel guilty for requiring help, excuses our not giving because some of the poor are lazy or waste our hard-earned money, or justifies our judging of the poor to find out who is the most worthy to receive our help (among the common complaint of the welfare system):
(. . .)
See what I'm getting here? The typical rants against the welfare system are not Gospel based.
Now, there are modern day prophets and apostles who have extolled the virtues of self-sufficiency, but to a different end than I imagined before getting into this.
Marion G. Romney said that "we should strive to become self-reliant and not depend on others for our existence," and then warned that "governments are not the only guilty parties." Any form of charity has the threat to create dependency and one of the goals of any should be to foster independence. The welfare system may need some fixes in this regard, but it is not the worst offender and it is not worth condemning wholesale.
But Pres. Faust asks, "is personal self-sufficiency one of the reasons men and women lack faith?" When we get so caught up in self-sufficiency above all else, we can become "afraid to look to any source of wisdom and knowledge above" ourselves.
Pres. Hinckley concurred, stating that "I cannot escape the interpretation that meekness implies a spirit of gratitude as opposed to an attitude of self-sufficiency, an acknowledgment of a greater power beyond oneself, a recognition of God, and an acceptance of his commandments."
So to what end do we strive to be self-sufficient? It is clearly not absolute independence which leads to a lack of humility and gratitude. I thought the talk "Sacrifice and Self-Sufficiency" by Elder Ballard summed it up pretty well. He tells of the wards and stakes in South America striving to decrease the cost of missionary work in order to become self-sufficient. The saints decided that one thing they could do was provide lunch each day to the missionaries. This took sacrifice from each member.
By sacrificing to make sure that they, as a larger community, became self-sufficient, they reaped many blessings. The goal of self-sufficiency was to put themselves in a position to lift up all the members of their community and not leave anyone behind. Self-sufficiency was achieved through the aggregation of community efforts and through sacrifice to the common good.
Our responsibility is to become self-sufficient so that we can help the poor and needy, and strengthen our communities. One way, a way that helps people nationwide through minimal personal investment on our own part, is the government welfare system. Many of the typical criticisms by Church members of that system are not solidly based in Gospel principles, but are based on materialism and pride, as opposed genuine concern for the best way to help our fellow Americans that are poor and needy. So while the Gospel does not require our support for a governmental welfare system, it does debunk many of our notions of why it should be discarded.
This is not going to be an argument that the Gospel requires us to support the federal welfare system. This is going to be an argument that it is perfectly in line with Gospel teachings to support a welfare system that aids the poor and needy, even if there are those that abuse the system, and that the typical criticisms of that system are not based on Gospel principles. There is no better place to start than with a lengthy excerpt from King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 4:
16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.There are a few things to take away from this scripture. First, it is our affirmative duty to give what we have in excess to the poor. Second, this duty is not conditioned on whether or not we think that poor person should really be more self-sufficient, our opinion that the poor are lazy, or how we think that poor person is going to spend our hard-earned money. Third, the only basis for receiving help is need. It is not whether or not I am worthy to receive help, whether I actually did bring this poverty upon myself, or any other predicate. If I am in need I should be helped. Fourth, it is hypocritical to judge the poor as unworthy of our support when we are completely dependent upon God for all that we have, and when he is freely merciful and giving of blessings despite our unworthiness to receive such.17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.
Two more important things. One is that, in that classic Gospel irony that comes up all the time, when we help the poor and needy it is really ourselves that receive the benefit. Every single disadvantaged person that we help could be completely unworthy in every way of our money, from wasting away what we give on frivolities to being mean and uncharitable to others and the like, and it would still be the commandment to give because it is more about us than about them. It is about us "retaining a remission of [our] sins" and "walking guiltless before God." It is about us learning to part with our material possessions in order to learn to be more Christ-like.
Two, and finally, that last verse about running faster than we have strength and doing all things in order is often taken out of context and quoted on its own, unconnected with its context of giving to the poor. It is still useful out of context to be applied to many situations, but we forget that it is specifically given in regards to our charitable work. The problem of the poor and poverty is way too far-reaching and complex to dealt with on an individual basis. In order to be as efficient as possible, and touch the most lives possible, there needs to be organization. The government, as noted in Part I, uses about one quarter of one percent of your income (one percent of the federal budget) to help millions in poverty through welfare. There is still plenty left over to donate to fast offerings, other charities, or individuals that need help if you would like. But the government welfare system is one particular way to do charitable work in orderliness.
But, of course, the scriptural mandate to help the poor doesn't stop there. Here is a representative list of scriptures that encourage us to care for the poor and needy, among dozens more not linked here:
Alma 1:27
Luke 18:20-24
Doctrine and Covenants 42:30-31
Doctrine and Covenants 56:16-19
James 2:16-19
1 Samuel 2:7-8
Alma 4:12-13
Mormon 8:37-39
Deuteronomy 15:7-11
Alma 34:28-29
Doctrine and Covenants 124:75
Here is a list of scriptures that condemns the poor to their own devices because there are some unworthy among them, requires that the poor get serious and start becoming more self-sufficient, makes the poor feel guilty for requiring help, excuses our not giving because some of the poor are lazy or waste our hard-earned money, or justifies our judging of the poor to find out who is the most worthy to receive our help (among the common complaint of the welfare system):
(. . .)
See what I'm getting here? The typical rants against the welfare system are not Gospel based.
Now, there are modern day prophets and apostles who have extolled the virtues of self-sufficiency, but to a different end than I imagined before getting into this.
Marion G. Romney said that "we should strive to become self-reliant and not depend on others for our existence," and then warned that "governments are not the only guilty parties." Any form of charity has the threat to create dependency and one of the goals of any should be to foster independence. The welfare system may need some fixes in this regard, but it is not the worst offender and it is not worth condemning wholesale.
But Pres. Faust asks, "is personal self-sufficiency one of the reasons men and women lack faith?" When we get so caught up in self-sufficiency above all else, we can become "afraid to look to any source of wisdom and knowledge above" ourselves.
Pres. Hinckley concurred, stating that "I cannot escape the interpretation that meekness implies a spirit of gratitude as opposed to an attitude of self-sufficiency, an acknowledgment of a greater power beyond oneself, a recognition of God, and an acceptance of his commandments."
So to what end do we strive to be self-sufficient? It is clearly not absolute independence which leads to a lack of humility and gratitude. I thought the talk "Sacrifice and Self-Sufficiency" by Elder Ballard summed it up pretty well. He tells of the wards and stakes in South America striving to decrease the cost of missionary work in order to become self-sufficient. The saints decided that one thing they could do was provide lunch each day to the missionaries. This took sacrifice from each member.
By sacrificing to make sure that they, as a larger community, became self-sufficient, they reaped many blessings. The goal of self-sufficiency was to put themselves in a position to lift up all the members of their community and not leave anyone behind. Self-sufficiency was achieved through the aggregation of community efforts and through sacrifice to the common good.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Supporting the Welfare System, Part I: A Public Policy Argument
Let's say you were approached by ten poor people who needed your help. You happen to have $100 extra dollars to help them out. Eight of those people were honest, hard-working, and have come on rough times through no fault of their own. Some have been laid off, are looking for work, maybe they come from a difficult background and are trying to claw their way out, maybe medical expenses got the best of them, or whatever. Some have a job, work hard, but still find themselves in poverty. They have children who need adequate meals, clothes, and opportunities the parents never had. They are truly worthy of your support. The other two are free-loaders. They look for a job, but not seriously. They would use some of your money for necessities, but some of it would go to things like an Xbox or a new TV or an iPod.
In this hypothetical situation, if you had an all or nothing choice, you either give the money to them all or none at all, what would do? Should you send a message to the two loafers at the expense of those that really need help or do you give to the two loafers incidentially so you can help the other eight? For me, the answer is clear cut, but for others it presents a serious dilemma.
Too many Americans project their justified distaste towards that minority of welfare abusers onto the majority that need help and are worthy of our support in order to demonize those on welfare and the system itself. Too many Americans view poverty as an indication of personal failures. This is not the case. What drives people to poverty and public assistance are low wages and lack of education.
Most families on the welfare system use it for a temporary period of time. About half are leave the system within a year, about 70% leave within two years, and about 90% leave within five years. Less then half come back within a year, but about 70% will use welfare again within five years. What this means is that a small fraction of welfare recipients are long-term cases. Those that come back will again remain on the welfare list temporarily. There is a small percentage of people that remain on welfare for extended periods of time, sometimes up to 25 years. A good percentage of welfare users are underemployed, meaning they have part time jobs but would rather have full time jobs.
Of course the system is imperfect and can be improved upon. Finding ways to weed out the abusers has proved difficult. The best welfare system is one that requires recipients to put in some amount of work for the benefits and also provides education and counseling to help people gain skills and motivation needed to get out of the system. But such programs are not needed for the majority of welfare recipients. The majority stay in the system temporarily, have a desire to work and a skill that makes them employable, and look for and find jobs.
Contrary to the empirical evidence to the contrary, human nature is to make conclusions based on personal experience. They see an abuser of the system who openly flouts his or her misappropriation and conclude that that must be the norm. They do not see, or ignore as contrary to their strongly emotional reaction to the abuser, the larger majority who hide the fact, out of pride, that they are receiving assistance.
The U-3 unemployment rate is at 8.5%. U-3 measures those unemployed and looking for employment. The U-6 unemployment rate is 15.6%. U-6 includes those who are underemployed (they are looking for a job but have taken a part time job or lower paying job as a temporary stop-gap) and those that have looked for a job but have temporarily given up looking. These are the highest numbers in decades. The economy has lost 5.1 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.
Do all of these people that qualify for welfare assistance deserve what they got handed to them? Are they just lazy and that's why they lost their jobs? This recession and all those lost jobs were caused by greedy, immoral financial executives who produce nothing of worth for society, who toy with our life savings and futures by creating secondary and tertiary markets based on speculation and, again, greed. The wealthy are getting wealthier at the expense of the working class. And yet our ire is pointed at the welfare system? The poor are supporting the lifestyles of the rich and when that system creates situations of poverty we blame the poor.
And yet only about 1 or 2 percent our total federal, state, and local budgets goes to welfare programs. We complain that welfare is a drag on our economy and ability for national growth, and yet just tiniest percentage of our tax burden goes to helping those unprivileged families. The risk is far greater that we will start seeing abhorrent slums, abject poverty, and systemic hunger than that we will see a "Nanny-state" which encourages widespread laziness and a general sense of entitlement.
Don't forget, too, that the middle and upper classes get forms of welfare, as well. We get things like tax breaks for owning a home, we get heavily subsidized student loans and Pell grants for going to college, we get lower tax rates on capital gains, we get more benefit out of the infrastructure because we can afford to live farther out in the suburbs and commute longer distances, and so on.
We can't blame all of our problems on society in general but we can pinpoint serious flaws in the hopes of improving them. Welfare, of course, isn't the final answer, for that we should strengthen and equalize our education system so that every person is given a quality, free education that provide real opportunities for success. Welfare is, however, a necessary link for many families between jobs or going through a difficult periods in their lives.
We are not islands unto ourselves. We are one nation and the successes or failures of some reflect on and affirmatively impact everyone else. The greatest nations are those that respect all law-abiding citizens, mete a measure of dignity to each, and do not simply leave the poor behind.
Coming up next will be "Supporting the Welfare System, Part II: The Religious/Moral Argument," wherein I preach.
In this hypothetical situation, if you had an all or nothing choice, you either give the money to them all or none at all, what would do? Should you send a message to the two loafers at the expense of those that really need help or do you give to the two loafers incidentially so you can help the other eight? For me, the answer is clear cut, but for others it presents a serious dilemma.
Too many Americans project their justified distaste towards that minority of welfare abusers onto the majority that need help and are worthy of our support in order to demonize those on welfare and the system itself. Too many Americans view poverty as an indication of personal failures. This is not the case. What drives people to poverty and public assistance are low wages and lack of education.
Most families on the welfare system use it for a temporary period of time. About half are leave the system within a year, about 70% leave within two years, and about 90% leave within five years. Less then half come back within a year, but about 70% will use welfare again within five years. What this means is that a small fraction of welfare recipients are long-term cases. Those that come back will again remain on the welfare list temporarily. There is a small percentage of people that remain on welfare for extended periods of time, sometimes up to 25 years. A good percentage of welfare users are underemployed, meaning they have part time jobs but would rather have full time jobs.
Of course the system is imperfect and can be improved upon. Finding ways to weed out the abusers has proved difficult. The best welfare system is one that requires recipients to put in some amount of work for the benefits and also provides education and counseling to help people gain skills and motivation needed to get out of the system. But such programs are not needed for the majority of welfare recipients. The majority stay in the system temporarily, have a desire to work and a skill that makes them employable, and look for and find jobs.
Contrary to the empirical evidence to the contrary, human nature is to make conclusions based on personal experience. They see an abuser of the system who openly flouts his or her misappropriation and conclude that that must be the norm. They do not see, or ignore as contrary to their strongly emotional reaction to the abuser, the larger majority who hide the fact, out of pride, that they are receiving assistance.
The U-3 unemployment rate is at 8.5%. U-3 measures those unemployed and looking for employment. The U-6 unemployment rate is 15.6%. U-6 includes those who are underemployed (they are looking for a job but have taken a part time job or lower paying job as a temporary stop-gap) and those that have looked for a job but have temporarily given up looking. These are the highest numbers in decades. The economy has lost 5.1 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.
Do all of these people that qualify for welfare assistance deserve what they got handed to them? Are they just lazy and that's why they lost their jobs? This recession and all those lost jobs were caused by greedy, immoral financial executives who produce nothing of worth for society, who toy with our life savings and futures by creating secondary and tertiary markets based on speculation and, again, greed. The wealthy are getting wealthier at the expense of the working class. And yet our ire is pointed at the welfare system? The poor are supporting the lifestyles of the rich and when that system creates situations of poverty we blame the poor.
And yet only about 1 or 2 percent our total federal, state, and local budgets goes to welfare programs. We complain that welfare is a drag on our economy and ability for national growth, and yet just tiniest percentage of our tax burden goes to helping those unprivileged families. The risk is far greater that we will start seeing abhorrent slums, abject poverty, and systemic hunger than that we will see a "Nanny-state" which encourages widespread laziness and a general sense of entitlement.
Don't forget, too, that the middle and upper classes get forms of welfare, as well. We get things like tax breaks for owning a home, we get heavily subsidized student loans and Pell grants for going to college, we get lower tax rates on capital gains, we get more benefit out of the infrastructure because we can afford to live farther out in the suburbs and commute longer distances, and so on.
We can't blame all of our problems on society in general but we can pinpoint serious flaws in the hopes of improving them. Welfare, of course, isn't the final answer, for that we should strengthen and equalize our education system so that every person is given a quality, free education that provide real opportunities for success. Welfare is, however, a necessary link for many families between jobs or going through a difficult periods in their lives.
We are not islands unto ourselves. We are one nation and the successes or failures of some reflect on and affirmatively impact everyone else. The greatest nations are those that respect all law-abiding citizens, mete a measure of dignity to each, and do not simply leave the poor behind.
Coming up next will be "Supporting the Welfare System, Part II: The Religious/Moral Argument," wherein I preach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
