DOES WELFARE DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

A lot of people are contemptuous of welfare and view it as a “handout.” Others are more forgiving of people on welfare and view it as a societal duty to help uplift those who have slipped through the cracks. Personally, I think of welfare as an investment in society that can benefit us all. (at least, successful welfare programs can)

Ultimately when people argue about welfare they talk about dollars. But after crunching the numbers it becomes clear that society’s positions on welfare are centered on moral values.

If you follow any logical chain of reasoning in support of welfare or against welfare, they all lead to the same question: do we have a moral duty to support others in society? And if so, to what extent do we have to sacrifice our own welfare for the welfare of others?

If we didn’t have even the most basic forms of welfare, i.e. Medicaid, food stamps, etc… what would happen to the sick and hungry?

pick yourself up by the bootstraps

Some would argue that getting rid of all welfare would inspire the poor to “pick themselves up by the bootstraps” and everything would be solved.

This argument neglects the fact that many are disabled, unable to work, or too sick to work i.e. they didn’t have boots to begin with. But, even if we assume that some would be inspired to “pick themselves up by the bootstraps”, many others would be unable to due to mental health issues, substance abuse issues, or also just simply unwilling to. And what would happen to them? With zero medical coverage and no food they would likely starve and die or resort to extreme crime. In which case our tax dollars would have to probating their estates, representing them in court, warehousing them in expensive prisons, collecting their carcasses, and quarantining the others to prevent a massive public health crisis.

Taking away welfare won’t solve the problem, it will only transfer our costs to other outlets. Instead of spending on medical care for the poor, now we’re spending money on prisons to protect society from the high crime rate they’ve resorted to, etc…

A very frugal tax payer may crunch the numbers even more and ask, well is it cheaper to throw them all in jail or do welfare programs actually have some benefit like reducing crime or promoting work skills? This poses another moral quandary. Even if it were cheaper to let people die and imprison the rest, would you really feel comfortable living in that type of society?

I personally wouldn’t, and that’s why the debate about welfare is more than just cost. It’s about our personal feelings of moral duty.

Better welfare is the solution

People assume that because welfare exists, it should solve its objectives to rehabilitate criminals and uplift the poor so they can become economic units in society and build generational wealth.

This is not the case.

Welfare systems are run by the government, and whenever the government runs something you can be sure there will be a ton of waste.

We still have rampant crime and poverty and drug use not because the socioeconomically disadvantaged are enabled by the programs, but because the programs don’t achieve their objectives.

Welfare provides the bare minimum for the poor, including food and shelter, with a few lackluster failed programs to boot. These programs have low success rates and require massive amount of tax dollars to run. The government outsources housing, programs, and shelter services to private organizations that charge a lot of money. Same with healthcare. Although Medicaid gets a discount for healthcare, the cost of healthcare is through the roof for everyone in America, as a result of corporate greed.

If we cut the government fat from welfare and reinvested that money to improve welfare programs, then we would see a greater societal payoff.