The Problems with Public Welfare; K. Gentry, Jr.

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. The Problems with Public Welfare AMERICANS have long been known to be a charitable people. Unfortu nately, government intervention could be changing that. The gov ernment has entered and gained monopolistic ascendancy in this field as in so many others. Being charitable makes it a bit difficult for us to speak out against public wel farism, lest we appear to be uncon cerned for the needs of the poor. However, there are numerous com pelling reasons why we can legiti mately decry public welfarism and still maintain-even emphasize our concern for the less fortunate in our society. 1. Public welfare destroys the personal relationship and interac tion which can be achieved through private, local charity. Big governThe Reverend Mr. Gentry Is the pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church, Jonesboro, Tennessee. ment is faceless and cannot express truly empathetic concern for the needy. The human element so essen tial to aid the poor is sacrificed to computerization.

2. It actually destroys a true sense of genuine charity among the general populace. Charity today is coercively maintained. How many times have you heard complaints about excessive taxation? And what accounts for a very large percentage of our national debt? I used to work in a grocery store and constantly overheard grumbling from the shoppers who were having to pinch their pennies when they observed a heavily loaded shopping cart of choice items being paid for with food stamps. Not\ only are ill feelings fos tered but also there is provided an excuse to shift responsibility when private charities appeal for funds: 697 698 THE FREEMAN November ~~The government has the resources. They will handle the situation." 3. It destroys, through excessive taxation, the capacity of private citi zens and organizations to help. Per sonal income is eroded through re distributive tax schemes, thus leav ing fewer funds for personal charity.

Remember the recent uproar over the enormous increase in the Social Security tax? There goes some more money that could have been avail able for private charity. 4. It undermines personal re sponsibility and incentive in the poor to help themselves. Welfare funds are addictive. Withdrawal is hard. 5. It promotes a false sense of securi ty among the needy. ~~The government will always be there to take care of me." UMy Social Secu rity will always be available to help me financially." According to the Federal Statement of Liabilities is sued by the Treasury Department, the Social Security program has about $4 trillion in unfunded obliga- ' tions! That's security? 6. It promotes a false sense of equality among minorities. They can either be led to believe they are getting their t~fair share" or that they are receiving ~~remuneration" for past offenses against them. De pendency does not promote equality.

7. It is less efficient than private charity. Private, local charity is true charity: it is voluntary and it is not subject to the bureaucratic filtering process. I have never heard the gov ernment or any of its programs praised for efficiency-except by the government and those who head the programs! 8. It promotes conflict among groups clamoring· to·get their hands on the handouts. Though theoreti cally (in a Keynesian economic sys tem) fiat· money could supply everyone with plenty of money, ac tually there is at least some restraint .upon the government's printing press (thank goodness for election years!). There is never enough money to make everyone happy; therefore, groups fight to get to the front of the. line. 9. It can and often does encourage immorality. The government does not have the same degree of reli gious and moral sensitivity that can characterize private charities. Il legitimate children are one way to gain additional welfare funds. Or if you decide against illegitimacy, in most cases you can get a ~~free" abor tion. Urban renewal programs have long been derided as consistently producing drug culture, crime infes tation areas, and family disruption.

10. It is more open to fraud and criminal abuse than smaller, more easily contained, private charity programs. Newspapers are filled with reports of welfare abuse by criminal elements. This serves as an additional Utax" on the truly needy 1979 THE PROBLEMS WITH PUBLIC WELFARE 699 themselves: scarce resources are fil tered away from their target. 11. It destroys the incentive to produce among the heavily taxed middle class. Success seems to be subject to undue fines (increased taxation). 12. It represents a large percent age of the federal debt that is monetized in the process of inflation. Price inflation erodes' the wealth of the nation and will eventually break the back of the economy. I recall in our local newspaper an interest ing-but not surprising-article on the economic plight of our area hos pital. This plight was caused by gov ernmental regulations related to welfare. It noted that Memorial Hospital gave ((free" medical care valued at $1.2 million in 1973-74, $2.5 million in 1974-75, $4.1 million in 1975-76, and $4.5 million in 1977.

The assistant administrator re ported that ((paying patient charges could be reduced by $50 a day if the hospital did not have to provide free care." There go more funds that could have been tapped for volun tary charity! 13. It is ironic that the expan sionistic monetary policies of the government which are partly neces sitated by welfare programs are not only hurting the general wellbeing of the nation at large but are espe cially hurtful to those on fixed in comes: the welfare recipients for whom we inflate in order to aid! The government is sadistic: it whips hardest the very people it sup posedly wants to help. 14. It coerces medical personnel to give out ((free" services as mentioned above. This not only raises prices for the non-welfare populace, but when medical programs are further expanded they cause medi cal shortages. England's socialized medicine is a case in point: England suffers from a doctor drain (they can live better elsewhere), overcrowded hospitals (free hospital care encour ages hospitalization for light cause), 'increasingly inadequate medical at tention (fewer doctors are serving larger crowds), and so on.

15. It increases statist power. That which controls your property and wealth controls you. A bigger government is more unmanageable, more susceptible to totalitarianism and tyranny. Thus, it aids and abets the erosion of liberty. Higher taxes cut down on what we are able to do, increased regulations (concocted by a powerful state) limit what we are allowed to do. 16. It unmasks ((blind" justice. It coercively redistributes the wealth from some in order to favor others-all in the name of social (justice"! Discriminating justice is mandatory injustice. 17. It encourages an increased ignorance in one of the most impor tant areas of life in our population: economics. ((Free" programs imply 700 THE FREEMAN that wealth is (Just there," profits are evil, shortages are contrived, lunches can be free. Our population already suffers a woeful ignorance of economic theory, without interven tionist politics setting a bad exam ple.

Yet despite these problems and others that could easily be multi plied, there are certain functions which government could properly perform to care for the needy. First, the central feature of the government is power. The purpose of this power is to insure the law and order necessary for economic stabil ity and growth. As F. A. Hayek has written in The Constitution of Lib erty: uThere is probably no single factor which has contributed more to the prosperity of the West than the relative certainty of the law which Secure and Enduring has prevailed here." A wealthier people can better support the needy. The government can promote wealth through law and order. Second, the government could abandon its redistributive schemes, reduce the burden of direct taxes and inflation, and leave to produc tive individuals the means and the incentive to help their less fortunate neighbors. Charitable giving is much more efficient than coercive redistribution.

Third, the state can use its judi cial power to prosecute criminal and fraudulent abuses of charity. The state does have a concern for the welfare of its population. The only legitimate way and the best way to care for the poor is through encouraging charity in the private sector by the three-fold method out lined above. ® IDEAS ON UBERTY LET us determine that we shall not allow the state to be our master, but that we shall be the masters of the state. The long road ofhistory is lined with the ruins of those states which bought the souls and wills of their peoples by the lure of a granted security, and then led them to ruin by the same mirage. The world does not need one more such ruin. It needs a people who will be really secure and enduring, as far as mortal life is possible-secure and enduring because each member of the society is a person who accepts his and her responsibilities as duties, and asks only that the state act to keep the avenues of freedom open.

RUSSELL J. CLINCHY. "Two Paths to Collectivism"