Welfare: Two Different Perspectives
It depends on one word: Cannot
A lot of has been happening politically with the assassination of the former president. A number of Substack accounts will have good analysis of the situation. Regovernance will focus on its mission to illuminate key issues in American politics.
Nick Gillespie from Reason Magazine participated in a debate on immigration recently in Dallas. As a libertarian, it is not a surprise that he supports more immigration. In his remarks, he said (paraphrase) that we shouldn’t put a fence around the country, but around the welfare state. His comment was not surprising and, I believe, everyone on the stage with the possible exception of Cenk Ugyer (I have no insight into his belief on this) would agree that the welfare state is crippling the country. Certainly Ann Coulter does, based on her writing.
I would argue there are still two perspectives about welfare in the US. One perspective has won the day previously and, with one small bump of an exception, still wins today. The other perspective won the day from 1776 - 1930’s, but has been replaced.
Today, we have a massive, government-run welfare state. Depending on what is considered welfare, it operates in the neighborhood of half of government spending (53% if you include health insurance, economic security and social security). Nearly 30% of the American people participate in welfare programs (as of 2019), which represents 99 million people. The size and scope of the welfare state is very large and all encompassing.
One questions that welfare critics have is that the programs are not at all sustainable. A $34 trillion debt is an indicator that Congressional spending within the budget and outside of the budget such as the Build, Back Better plan, which represents $1.75 trillion of spending over the budget and in many cases, represents payoffs to Democratic donors (the Republicans do the same thing). Sustainability is a key question that must be asked, but it is a financial question, albeit a crucial one.
The bigger question is not sustainability, it is purpose:
Is it fair to require the government to take from those who work and give to those who either don’t work or work less?
Does welfare promote people off government dependency, thereby shrinking poverty?
Taking the second question first: if welfare spending meets its objectives of reducing dependence, then we would expect to see less demand for welfare spending, adjusted for population. We see a 458% increase from 1977 to 2021 in constant dollars. The population did not grow nearly 5 fold during that time frame, it only grew 56.3% (using the Megatrends analysis 1977-2021). This means that welfare spending is growing significantly faster than the population, indicating welfare demand is rising. Therefore, welfare is failing to reduce dependency and move people from welfare to work.
The main question among the welfare purpose is fairness. Why should the country expect some people to work (and pay into the welfare system) so that others don’t have to work? Initially, this would be seen as a strange argument. It would be institutionalized discrimination that one group of people is forced to pay for another. Of course, the key here is force. As a husband, I gladly pay for my wife and children. Some people willingly support elderly parents. However to force people to pay for others they would not already voluntarily pay for seems unfair at best.
As I see it, there are two perspectives on this question. I think the vast majority of people would pay a little for people who cannot work. The most conservative people I know would willingly pay for wounded Iraq veterans who are completely paralyzed by bullets or shrapnel. Of course, they want the Department of Veteran Affairs to perform, but taking care of veterans does not seem objectionable. The question comes down to who cannot work.
Libertarians, of course, want to end all entitlements. Beyond that, those on the political right generally want society to provide for those who cannot physically or mentally work. That means if a person has nobody else to take care of them and they are either mentally ill or physically disabled, then they can go on the welfare rolls. People who are able bodied and not mentally ill should be denied welfare benefits. If somebody does not fall into either the disabled or mentally ill category, they are free to make their case for voluntary charity.
Those on the political left assume that, generally, if someone is not working they have a good reason. The stories I get from the left a lot is the abandoned mother with 3 kids at home needs welfare so she can pay for child care and work, or stay home with the kids and raise them in the absence of the father. A common progressive view is that Americans have a duty to help everyone no matter their scenario, other than the super wealthy of course. Under the progressive view, there simply is not enough charity to fund the number of people they define as “cannot work,” therefore the government needs to step in for coerce working people to help.
What is truly interesting to me is the difference between who cannot work (or, conversely, who can and is expected to) between the two points of view. Each assumes an entirely different view of work. Apparently the left has won this battle to date. Welfare spending in all forms continues to rise. Is a progressive view of who cannot work sustainable? The libertarian in me says no, especially when the definition of “cannot” expands with the passage of time. In the 1930’s, progressives defined “cannot” as being elderly or sick. By the 1960’s, progressives defined “cannot” as anyone who didn’t already have a job. One could easily argue that, although it isn’t welfare per se, student loan forgiveness is another “cannot work.” I wonder what other “cannots’ exist in the future of the country. Expanding the definition so broad it includes everyone but the 1% will destroy the economy.