A. Thomas Jefferson
Attila the Unnngh.
JFK
You think your AlwaysRight.
Franklin Roosevelt
Do you think Attila's wives called him "Hun"?
D. FDR
E. Underdog
F. John Kerry on crack
Does Welfare Diminish Poverty?
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - April 1984
by Howard Baetjer Jr.
Printable Format
Does government-provided poor relief decrease the amount of poverty? That it does is an assumption at the heart of our nation’s very large antipoverty programs. In fact those programs were instituted for the purpose of making themselves obsolete. Shortly before passing the Social Security Act in 1935, for example, Franklin Roosevelt declared to Congress, “The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief . . . . Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.” Thirty years later, as he signed the first antipoverty bill of the Great Society, Lyndon Johnson said, “We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief or welfare rolls. We want to offer the forgotten fifth of our population opportunity and not doles . . . . The days of the dole in our country are numbered.”
The assumption that welfare helps the poor also explains why so many people today reject in practice the appealing old notion of classical Liberalism that government should play no favorites: that the force of law should not be used to benefit some people at the expense of others. While they recognize and perhaps regret that welfare does involve the force of law to benefit some (those considered poor) at the expense of others (everyone else), they feel the principle is justifiably violated since welfare diminishes need. But is this assumption true? Does welfare, when all is said and done, really help solve the problem of poverty?
There is good reason to believe that it does not. What is worse, there is substantial evidence that welfare impedes progress against poverty. In our country, worst of all, welfare seems to have increased poverty. What follows is a brief summary of the thinking and evidence that lead to this surprising conclusion. We would do well to consider it seriously, for if it is true, our national antipoverty policy is doing great disservice precisely to those it is intended to help. In the words of Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, “corn-passionate policy requires dispassionate analysis” of policy effects. Analysis of welfare shows it to be a problem for poverty, not a solution.
Experience with government intervention in Britain turned Mr. Baetjer to the cause of liberty. So, after a year back at St. George’s, he left teaching to write the first drafts of his essay, The Golden Rule of Laissez-Faire, an argument on moral grounds for limited government and a free society. Since the fall of 1982 he has been enrolled in a master’s program in political science at Boston College, concentrating on political philosophy. He will receive his degree at the end of May.
Howard recently has joined in the work of FEE as a full time staff member. He plans to continue studying, writing, lecturing, and practicing liberty in the effort to draw others to the free market way of life.
Has a Leftist ever spoken the truth?
G. Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi
Just for fun......Close your eyes and picture James Carville saying this. (Don't actually look at him, closing your eyes will prevent that stomach acid taste from filling-up your mouth)
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
Abbott and Costello.
Dang it, I hate pop quizzes...
Many many American government, religious and secular leaders, starting right after the founding of the Republic.
He would have come around to their line of thinking.
If you believe the United States should have a new lease on life, click here.