Undoing the American Republic with Welfare and Institutionalized Poverty (That's Why Welfare Reform is So Important)
They inspire and encourage too many people to stay on welfare and not look for employment (cost-benefit analysis)
They perpetuate of ignorance, illiteracy, etc
They serve as a viable alternative to getting an education
They reward those who did not take public education seriously nor took any initiative to learn a skill
They reward women for having children without being married
They reward women for not cooperating with authorities to identify the father or fathers of their children (in order to have them provide child care)
They have created generational government dependency (young girls imprint on their mothers and get pregnant without being married in order to be taken care of rather than get educated and work)
Rather than serve the positive goal of providing a temporary safety-net until the applicant can get back on his or her feet, they have become a permanent means of support. Dependency has become a way of life. (Over the years, more and more social programs have been created to help make people more comfortable in their poverty. They do NOTHING to help them become independent and self-sufficient, and in fact, do everything to establish the hand-outs as a way of life)
They have resulted in the increase in crime, drug use, and human decay [In agreeing to sign the Civil Rights legislation of 1965, LBJ's chief objective was to reduce dependency by blacks and put an end to the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. He said he wanted "to break the cycle of poverty" and make "taxpayers out of tax eaters." He further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the "conditions that breed despair and violence," those being "ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs"]
They have ruined whole communities
They have created a class system in the US (those who are dependent and are takers; and those who are independent and produce).
They have caused one group of citizens to distrust and to have no respect for another group of people (because many recipients are non-citizens)
They have caused people to question the legitimacy of the voting system [Is it fair for people living off the government (ie, other people), to have the ability to vote and have a say in how other people's money is spent? Maybe there should be a progressive voting system like there is a progressive income tax.... Those with more money and assets are taxed at a higher level so maybe their votes should carry greater weight]
To highlight the differences between those on welfare and other social programs with those who provide for themselves one sentence, I would sum it up this way: Those on welfare receive a check without any conditions attached; those not on welfare are subject to.
The federal government has been financing government-provided welfare since the 1930s. Of the more than $1.1 trillion spent in fiscal year 2016, federal expenditures accounted for $829 billion (or 74% of all funding related to welfare programs), and state expenditures accounted for $297 billion (or 26%). Most state spending ($213 billion) is done on one single program - Medicaid. In terms of GDP, welfare alone accounts for 6%. It has risen steadily and quickly in the years after Ronald Reagan left office. During LBJ's term, welfare spending accounted for 1.5% of GDP; during Carter's term it more than doubled - to 3.6%; during Reagan's term, it remained the same and even dipped; but then after he left office, it began to increase quickly and steadily.
Imagine how much each taxpayer could be relieved in his or her federal taxation burden if the federal government taxed only for the spending for which it is constitutionally allowed. Imagine how much each individual State could then tax its citizens. They would be able to raise money on their own to cover internal expenses - the running of the State and the care of its people - and more importantly, they could spend that money AS THEY SEE FIT, and not within the conditions imposed by the federal government. Imagine how, if this financial dependency were ended, the rightful balance between federal and state government power could be better achieved. Taking away the financial power to coerce and control leaves the States in a better position to stand up to the federal government rather than to cower and concede.
As mentioned above, the spending identified above, including funding (grants) to the States and including welfare and other means-tested assistance programs, are unconstitutional. Yet there are citizens who feel passionate and strongly that those who can give up some of their income should do so in order to take care of those who are less fortunate, those who are legitimately disabled (and not like some friends I know who filed for disability because of their obesity), those who work but can't provide enough for their family (while still continuing to have more and more kids), those who are here illegally and need help providing for their growing families, those who have children without being or getting married (including those who refuse to provide information to the authorities for child-support), those who are crafty at defrauding the system, those who ignored the opportunity to become educated and hence can't get anything other than a minimum-wage job, and those who simply don't want to work. I wonder if they feel so passionate and so supportive of these people because they know that it is other people's hard-earned money that will be used to support them. I wonder if they would feel the same if the money was taken from them, their family, their food allowance, and their recreation fund. I think the only legal way that the federal government can offer welfare and other means-tested assistance programs is if it asks each taxpayer, at the time they file their taxes, if they would be willing to donate additional of their money for the care of the poor. I'm sure many would agree to do so. I'm also sure that such programs would have much less funding which means criteria would be stricter and time restraints would have to be added. The programs would clearly have to be temporary in nature and because of stringent criteria, there would be indirect pressure to get off as soon as possible.
So, let me list out some solutions to the problem of federal discretionary spending, including Welfare and state grants:
(i) My first solution to this out-of-control, unconstitutional-taxing and spending bloated government is for the States to challenge each item of federal spending for constitutionality. For each item that is not constitutional, the federal income tax rate should be reduced accordingly.
(ii) My second solution (and this one is for Welfare only) would be the one outlined in the previous full paragraph (each taxpayer can offer to send additional of their money to the government for welfare programs). Personally, I like this one. This forces people to put up or shut up. It forces people to put their money where their mouth is.
(iii) My third solution is each state to establish a State Escrow Account. (I've written an article on this and how it would work). Each State would review the federal budget and determine which items are constitutional or not. It would then adjust the federal budget accordingly. Then it would determine the pro rata share of that budget that North Carolina residents would provide. The state would require all residents to have their federal income tax first reviewed by the State Treasury Department. Only the portion that corresponds to constitutional federal spending would be forwarded to the IRS and the remainder would be deposited in the State Escrow Account. The state would then determine for itself what to do with the escrow funds - either returning it to its residents or applying it to state projects, thus relieving the state of any un-necessary reliance on the federal government and moving the state towards the independence it was intended to have.
(iv) My last solution is to keep welfare and the other means-tested social programs, but to treat them like state grants and attached strict conditions to recipient status. Remember, welfare and other such social entitlement programs are like state grants in that they both are an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing and spending power. Conditions should be attached for two essential reasons: (1) to ensure that recipients can only receive benefits for a LIMITED time (there will need to be time limits); and (2) to make it so burdensome that recipients will want to get off of government assistance as soon as possible, whether that means they will look at marriage and education more favorably or will invest in career training programs or will make sure they do not have further children which may tend to keep them dependent on government aid. Some conditions that should be placed on free government aid (ie, other people's money) include:
Mandatory birth control. (No government check without first receiving a monthly birth control shot)
No increase in the welfare check and no additional funds should the recipient have another child while on public assistance
Suspension of the right to vote
Definite earmarks are attached to the funding. Funds can only go towards essential food items, housing, and transportation. Any person on government assistance who can afford a new car will be automatically kicked out of the program
No free cell phones
No visits to the nail salon
No funding for air-conditioning (Lowe's sells a great $12 fan which works wonders in the heat)
Mandatory proof of job searches (including signed statements from each employer consulted, including the reason the person could not be considered or interviewed. Job searches will be viewed with extreme scrutiny for potential for fraud and abuse; for example, a person who has a criminal record should not be looking for a job with law enforcement or education, daycare, etc because such jobs expressly require employees to have no criminal background history)
Mandatory community college or GED courses for those who did not graduate high school or who barely graduated (those who severely lack the basic skills and knowledge imputed on an adult, or a young adult)
Mandatory college or community college courses for those who have no college diploma, associates degree, vocational training, etc (No government check without a report showing course status; if a person is not working, he or she must be developing their career and building valuable job skills)
Children of a person on welfare must be doing well in school (average or better)
Proof of citizenship must be provided (and confirmed by the Social Security Department). Identity fraud will result in immediate deportation
Recipients must show they are drug-free (mandatory drug-testing)
Random audits will be conducted
Mandatory visits from a social worker to assess the cleanliness and order of the home and the environment for the child (or children)
Recipients must be available for community service when the state government needs them
I'm sure there are other conditions that I haven't thought of and I'm sure that others would make some suggestions of their own. In fact, I would encourage those who have read this article to comment and add their suggestions.
Milton Friedman, an economist, was highly critical of welfare, and noted several times how it should be judged by its results and outcomes and not by its intentions. He also said: "There's been one underlying basic fallacy in this idea of welfare measures, and that is that it is feasible and possible to do good with other people's money. That view has two flaws. If I want to do good with other people's money, I first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people's money, at it's very bottom, is a philosophy of violence and coercion. It's against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money. In the second place, very few people spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own."
If we are going to coerce and extort money from taxpayers, not merely to provide safety and security for the country or to legislate for the enumerated objects in Article I, Section 8, but also to support those who don't want to even try to support themselves and their families, then the very least we should do is provide accountability to those taxpayers (those hard-working men and women whose paychecks are seized by the government for 1/3 of the year) and that is to attach strict and limiting conditions to welfare checks. The program, which would have to be run as one that is contractual in nature and not as a constitutional responsibility, must be so burdensome, so intrusive, so violative of freedom, and so unattractive to the recipient that he or she will absolutely want to spend as little time as possible on it. Well that's the hope anyway.
References:
John Perazzo, "How the Liberal Welfare Destroyed Black America," Front Page Magazine, May 5, 2016. Referenced at: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262726/how-liberal-welfare-state-destroyed-black-america-john-perazzo
Mike Maharrey, "The General Welfare Clause is Not About Writing Checks," The Tenth Amendment Center, August 28, 2014. Referenced at: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/28/the-general-welfare-clause-is-not-about-writing-checks/
Federalist No. 41 - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
"Federal Aid to States and Local Governments," Congressional Budget Office (CBO), April 18, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/federal-aid-to-state-and-local-governments
The Delegates Who Didn't Sign the Constitution - https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/those-who-didnt-sign-the-constitution/
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (May 27 - September 1787) - http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html
"Federal Grants to State and Local Governments (1960-2017) - Chart Analysis," Mercatus Center (George Mason University). Referenced at: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Federal-grant-aid-state-and-local-chart-analysis-pdf.pdf
"Federal Spending on Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: In Brief," Congressional Research Service, Feb. 6, 2018. Referenced at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf
"Spending for the General Welfare," Cornell Law School. Referenced at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank (1791), Avalon Project (Yale Law School). Referenced at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
Grant Policy - https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-policies.html
Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?," National Priorities Project. Referenced at: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Matthew J. Franck, "The Lawless Welfare State," National Review, Jan. 13, 2013. Referenced at: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2010/05/17/lawless-welfare-state/
Go Back
