Return Of The Worthy Poor?

While leafing through a university text book for a course in social work, I came across an interesting chapter on the history of charity and the welfare state. The author described and rejected prior efforts to delineate the "worthy poor" from the "unworthy poor." This concept holds that the former are comprised of individuals unable to care for themselves because they were sick, orphaned, elderly, etc. The latter are able bodied individuals whose impoverishment was conceived to stem from their pathological values, habits and choices.

Philanthropists that subscribed to this vision believed that the right to receive assistance was accompanied by the responsibility of the poor to demonstrate their willingness to work. Even progressive reformers and champions of the poor, like Jane Addams, who emphasized "structural factors" in poverty, actively sought to promote middle class values of personal responsibility, self control, sobriety and thrift among the poor families that they assisted. Later generations of reformers and progressives criticized her for this and (what they perceived to be) her efforts to "acculturate" diverse immigrants to America towards white, Anglo-American culture. Many felt that efforts to address the behavior of the poor unjustly "blamed the victim" and distracted from "oppression" and "institutional causes of poverty." Furthermore, if food, housing, health care and child care were "fundamental rights," by definition one could someone be unworthy of them. Many of the architects of the modern welfare state held and actively promoted this worldview, presumably not only on philosophical grounds, but also because government bureaucrats neither had the ability or even the will to intimately interact with recipients of aid as philanthropists had. The unprecedented post war economic boom, from the late 1940's to the 1990's, coupled with the growth of deficit financing allowed for the vast expansion of size and scope of the welfare state and accepted notions of eligibility.

Anyone who follows the news sees that the federal government, as well as most city, state and county governments are facing mounting debt. On a local level this has forced politicians to begin cutting government services, whereas the federal government's capacity to borrow and print money will, for the time being, allow it to avoid austerity measures. I am convinced that growing financial pressures will force governments to not only enact broad budget cuts, but to engage in contentious, but necessary efforts to prioritize the use of limited funds. The public and politicians will have to determine if funds should be directed towards (badly needed) programs for the mentally ill and disabled or towards fraud ridden section-8 housing vouchers. Progressives who wish to prevent the dissolution of the safety net will have to become conscience and critical of the strain that pathological behaviors, such as unchecked single motherhood and sloth place on the system. So, if not in word, at least in practice, limited government resources will force us to determine who is more and who is less worthy of receiving scarce funds. And the much maligned shame and social stigma that welfare dependency engendered may even be promoted as a cost effective means to maintain sustainable levels of participation. This should be viewed not as a "mean spirited condemnation of the less fortunate," but as an exercise in accounting and prioritization that all households and businesses must engage in on a regular basis.

Why The New Title?

My readers are probably wondering why I have changed the title of our blog from the Chicago Freedom Forum to the Chicago Freedom And Reason Forum. Reflecting on prior posts, I came to realize that a reoccurring theme is the flawed reason, divorced from experience and empirical truth behind most unsound policies. And I have come to see that unconstrained freedom, not tempered by reason and moderation leads to libertinism and disorder which engenders social, economic and political authoritarianism. Only with reason and truth can freedom be maximized, can liberty be sustained.

Brief Reflections on Safety Nets (part II)

In our previous post we discussed the concentric vision of safety nets. Traditionally, most progressives are dismissive of the American Ideal of the industrious self made man. Some are outright hostile to it, believing that it has encouraged many to "blame the victims" of capitalism. Yet, it is clear that a multifaceted safety net in particular and a health civil society in general, are made possible by the existence of a large, confident class of prosperous, entrepreneurial Americans. Historically, this group has formed the foundation of the charitable class. The boldest examples are Bill and Melinda Gates who have given billions to a myriad of noble causes. But of greater importance are the millions of Americans who donate their time and energy to helping family, friends, churches, charities and provide the lion's share of tax revenue that fund state, local and federal safety nets.

 Progressives should be just as concerned as their conservative counterparts about the rising number of Americans who are possessed by the entitlement mentality. The reason being is that those who have become dependent on the state are rarely willing or able to contribute to the welfare of their communities. Why should they? It is the responsibility of the state to care for their neighbors, to care for the poor and even to care for their own children. It is the responsibility of "the rich" to fund these programs. The fiscal ramifications are clear; the growth of the dependent class is unsustainable and will bankrupt the social programs that progressives cherish. And as the state becomes more coercive and covetous, the entrepreneurial class that forms the backbone of safety nets and civil society will become less willing or able to share the fruits of their labor, like their counterparts in most other societies.

On the Handicapped

While helping an associate of mine seek employment I came across many wonderful
not-for-profit organizations, including several that assist the handicapped.

This brought up one of the reasons why I harbor strong reservations about the size and scope of the welfare state. Funds are limited and to give to one group is to take away from another. Hence, we must make difficult decisions about the most just way to allocate painfully limited resources. Or, like Obama we can avoid prioritization and seek to simultaneously fulfill the desires of all parties, which of course is a recipe for national bankruptcy.

The funds we direct towards welfare diminish funds that could towards assisting the handicapped. The public funds that provide housing, food and health care for someone who has chosen to have four children out of wedlock could and should go towards helping a young man with autism enjoy quality assisted living. The funds that go towards paying people not to work, could be directed towards programs that help the mentally retarded obtain socially and economically fulfilling employment. The funds that go towards those who have developed diabetes and cardiovascular disorders through their lifestyle choices could go towards addressing the congenital health issues that a young lady with Downs Syndrome faces.

In a perfect world we could fund each group, but in the real world we must make painful choices. And as a society we must choose to direct as much of our limited resources as possible towards those who suffer because of innate physical and mental disabilities rather than those who suffer largely through the consequences of their own choices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u4p4G7Tx7I

Don't Kill The Goose...

I will never understand the general antipathy that most "progressives" hold towards commerce and capitalism. So many things that they revere are only possible through the surplus of wealth created by productive individuals and "evil" corporations.

To start off with, history shows that there is an undeniable connection between commerce and the culture. Those familiar with Greek, Arab, Ottoman and Venetian history will know that their greatest periods of artistic and cultural production occurred when these societies prospered through an expansion of trade and commerce.

And throughout history most of mankind suffered from scarcity (poverty & hunger). But, through the continuous revolutions in production that occur in free markets, has the creation of wealth in the United States reached such a point where the basic needs of the majority are met and surpluses of wealth can be redistributed (freely through civil society or coercively through the state) towards:

1. Charities and non-for-profit organizations: only through our incredible prosperity are so many individuals able and willing to direct their surplus income towards these organizations.

2. The diffusion of diverse artistic and cultural endeavors: only though our unparalleled prosperity created by capitalism is their sufficient wealth to privately and publicly fund the arts.

3. Scientific and academic research on an unparalleled level. Universities and research institutions are heavily subsidized by public funds which are from taxes levied on productive enterprises.

4. Maintain costly government safety nets (social security, Medicare, etc.) and welfare. The billions and billions of dollars redistributed towards the recipients and (even more significantly) the endless bureaucrats that administer these programs originate from the individuals and businesses that fund them.

5. Enacting costly health, safety and environmental regulations: only through the incredible productivity made possible through capitalism can businesses bear the regulatory burden and fund the bureaucracies that impose them.

6. Expanding educational and professional opportunities for handicapped individuals.

7. Furthering the humane treatment of animals. Only in capitalist nations that generate a high living standard are people sufficiently prosperous to dedicate their time, energy and money towards the betterment of living standards of animals.

So, we must take heed and not "kill the capitalist goose who laid all of these progressive eggs."

The Blob

The unprecedented expansion of the state that has occurred under the Obama administration is seen by many simply as a response to an economic crisis. But, each day it becomes clearer that the massive shift of resources from the private to the public sector represents something more profound than simple crisis management; it is Obama's very raison d'être (reason of being).

Obama recently proposed changes to the tax code that will greatly reduce the deductions available to many Americans for making charitable contributions. His plan will start by raising the highest marginal rate from 35% to nearly 40% (for couples earning more than $250,000) and then it will reduce the charitable deduction rate from 35% to 28%. Economists estimate that this will result in at least a $5,000,000,000 reduction in charitable giving. So, by every definition this equals a shift of resources from the private sector and civil society to the state.

Even groups that are supportive of Obama are troubled by these developments. William Daroff, the Vice President of Public Policy for the United Jewish Communities, stated that "numerous studies confirm that any reduction in the tax benefits available for charitable giving will have a significant negative impact on giving...at a time when charities are literally going bankrupt...and we are seeing a huge increase in the demand for social services and a simultaneous decrease in resources to fund programs, governmental policy should be to incentivize charitable donations - not creating more reasons for donors to forgo making contributions."

Anyone who believes that this represents a move towards fiscal responsibility and away from subsidies must be blind, because Obama has raised government spending and subsidies for countless programs. Rather, this reflects Obama's Euro-socialist vision in which charity, social responsibility and individual initiative are outsources to the state. Why should individuals and private organizations strive to help their fellow man, when it's the job of the state to provide food, housing, medicine, mortgages and higher education to all?

On a deeper level this is a manifestation of Obama's BLOB like state that grows and expands through the consumption of all economic and social resources that cross its path. The BLOB started with free enterprise, now it turns to charities, what will it consume next? Stay tuned for the next episode of the BLOB...

An exception to the rule...

Pictured above - Andrew Carnegie one of the richest and most charitable men in American history.

In his visit to the United States Tocqueville noted that one of the things that makes the United States unique is the strength and scope of its civil society. He noted on countless Americans voluntarily contribute their time and money to thousands and thousands of charities, churches and civic organizations with no direct self benefit to themselves.

The more I learn about other cultures, the more I can tell you with certainty that this is an exception to the rule that this makes America a unique and wonderful country.

In many nations the wealthy watch as half their nation starves. But in the United States the great leaders of commerce from Carnegie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie) to Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates_foundation) voluntarily donated vast sums of money to better their fellow citizens. And many educated people, who I greatly respect, opt for lower paying jobs in the non-profit sector.

In socialist and social democratic countries in which the state supposedly intervenes on behalf of the poor, the typical citizen will not voluntarily spend a dime or a minute of their time on behalf of their brethren. Caring for the poor, supporting arts and education is the job of the state, not of private citizens.

That which takes a century to create can be undone by the sloth of a generation. I fear that as the nanny state expands and becomes the cradle-to-grave caregiver, our great civil society and sense of social initiative will wither. And as the state usurps more and more of our wealth, those who once gave freely and joyfully will tightly cling to their diminishing wealth.


Here are some great organizations; I encourage you to give to one or more of them - our messiah, the great Obama can not yet cure the blind and turn water into wine, so the poor and sick still need your help.
http://www.bpkids.org/site/PageServer


http://www.leukemiafoundation.org/


http://www.afmda.org/

http://www.wfmt.com/