We can be idealists, and deny the role of government in public welfare, but until there is a change of heart among the people, the welfare state is with us.
In “The Unheavenly City”, sociologist Edward Banfield observes that there are two types of poor people:
1) Those who are poor by accident, i.e. job loss, injury, divorce, etc. They are industrious people who have been dislocated and dispossessed. They are not happy about their condition and want to get back to work and relative prosperity as soon as possible.
2) Those who don’t want to work, and who simply want to get by on the welfare system.
The two groups are not mutually exclusive. Depending on the structure of the program, welfare programs may give incentive for people to move from group 1 to group 2.
The challenge is how to design welfare programs to provide a safety net for very temporary assistance, so that a shock does not put people on the street, while not giving incentives for people to move from group 1 to group 2.
In other words, embody the moral intent of the program, without encouraging deterioration in other morals.
After his travel around fledgling America, de Toqueville observed that approximately one in seven families chose to live in squalor -- denying the opportunity all about them.
They seemed satisfied with their limited circumstances and were unwilling to take the steps necessary to improve upon them -- which would've required nothing more than some effort.
That same proportion persists today in the welfare-dependent. Some people are just wired to prefer dependency over self-reliance. As a nation, we shouldn't be rewarding that impulse.
One possible solution would be a genuine safety net with a window for those industrious who have fallen on hard times, and a stipend to help care for those who genuinely can’t work, and remove, or at least reduce the generational dependency on the dole. My Grandpa said “Anyone can be broke, but poor is a way of life.”