The Welfare System Is Evil and Totally Un-American

(The first three paragraphs are excerpted from Poverty in the United States: 50-Year Trends and Safety Net Impacts, March 2016)

“Sixty years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty,” and signed the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. The initiatives undertaken as part of the War on Poverty were designed to improve the education, skills, health, and resources of low-income individuals and families to help them expand their productivity and ability to make ends meet and enhance their lifelong economic outcomes. Many cornerstones of the modern-day social safety net (e.g., food stamps, later renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], Community Health Centers, Head Start) were first established in 1964. The additional building blocks of Medicaid, Medicare, and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act followed in 1965, among many new and expanded anti-poverty programs.”

“Building on this foundation, the safety net has expanded during the past 50 years to further alleviate poverty and better meet the needs of low-income individuals and families. Some of the major additions to the safety net included the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program in 1972, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program in 1972, Pell Grants in 1972, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 1975, the child support program in 1975, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in 1981, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in 1997, Medicare Part D (Low Income Subsidy) in 2003, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010.”

“Compared to 1972, in 2012 the school breakfast and lunch programs provided meals to 19.1 million more children; Medicaid/CHIP covered 36.7 million more recipients; and 3.3 million more households received housing assistance to help ensure they had adequate shelter. Among programs created after 1972, in 2012 the child support program assisted 17.2 million children and the EITC raised the family income of 28.2 million working tax filers.”

According to the report cited above and prepared by the Office of Human Services Policy Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (how’s that for a bureaucratic tongue-twister?), poverty rates have fallen since LBJ’s War on Poverty began, from 19.0 percent in 1964 to 14.8 percent in 2014. However, the poverty rate for children only declined by 1.9 percent from 23.0 percent to 21.1 percent over the same time period.

To me, one of the most glaringly unanswered questions about the government's report - and the government's multiple welfare programs - is this: If the government's goal is to lift people out of poverty, why is an increase in the number of people served considered a good thing, let alone an unqualified success? It would be like a public health agency designed to keep people healthy bragging about the number of people that are currently hospitalized.

Another gripe I have with the failed War on Poverty is the astronomical amount of money that has been spent with very little to show for it. The Heritage Foundation doesn’t think that we have gotten enough “bang for our buck” and I wholeheartedly agree.

According to the Heritage Foundation, “In the 50 years since [the War on Poverty began], U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.”

Did you catch that last part? Despite spending more than $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs from 1964 to 2014, the only thing the federal government has accomplished is to create a permanently dependent underclass. I think the Heritage Foundation’s phrase “less capable of self-sufficiency” pretty much says it all.

My friends, America was founded on the dual principles of personal freedom and personal responsibility. For the first time in human history, men and women were free to forge their own lives without government interference or government dependence. Work hard and catch a few breaks along the way and you were bound to succeed. However, if you chose not to be industrious, then the resulting poverty was on you.

Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but I don’t know too many people – even today – who stayed in school, got a job and worked hard at it, obeyed the law, got married before they started a family, and lived within their means who aren’t doing OK. Conversely, I know very few people who dropped out of school, broke the law, had children out-of-wedlock, and spent more than they earned who are not struggling to make ends meet… even with Uncle Sam’s help.

As a matter of fact, Uncle Sam is largely to blame for subsidizing the kind of immoral and lackadaisical lifestyle that often leads to poverty. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Folks, I have worked with inmates and at-risk youth for 38 years and it is criminal (pardon the pun) to see the destruction caused by Uncle Sam’s insistent meddling. From my perspective, the role of the federal government is to protect its citizens from enemies “foreign and domestic”, to make sure our food and water supply is safe, to construct and maintain the necessary infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, airports, seaports, and sanitation systems – and then to get out of our way!

By the sweat of our own brows, Americans should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. And if they do fail, the responsibility to offer a helping hand should fall on family first, followed by the local community, the church and other places of faith, and charities.

By “butting in” where it doesn’t belong, the federal government has eroded the twin character traits of self-discipline and self-responsibility… while saddling future generations of hardworking Americans with an unsustainable mountain of debt.

Nice job, Uncle Sam.

(Two closing thoughts... First, the statistics quoted throughout this article are 10 years old, meaning that the number of people enrolled in social welfare programs - and the amount of money spent on them - has almost assuredly risen dramatically. In fact, the vast majority of our $35 trillion national debt can be attributed to the War on Poverty. Second, when our family relocated to Florida in 2011 to start a new ministry from scratch, I worked three part-time jobs that first year: getting Risk Takers for Christ up and running, managing the golf and tennis department at Sports Authority, and serving as a freelance reporter for the Indian River Press Journal. Despite working as many as 60 hours per week, I grossed a grand total of $18,000 that year, which is well below the poverty line for a family of five with a mortgage and three children in college at the same time. And yet, I never once considered applying for government assistance. Simply put, it was my responsibility to provide for my family, not Uncle Sam's, and I would have worked a fourth job if necessary to put food on our table and a roof over our heads. Within a year - and through a combination of hard work and God's blessing - I was able to go full-time with RTC and today, I earn a decent living. As the sign on Ronald Reagan's desk said: It CAN be done!)