"The income tax, the welfare laws, the minimum wage law, and thousands of other regulations conspire to keep people from ever getting off welfare. Taking a job would mean a severe cut in take-home pay. So these people are consigned to a life of poverty, desperation, and no self respect -- and, even worse, this is all they have to pass on to their children. It is the closest thing we have had to slavery in America since the Civil War."

"Who is helped by being made a ward of the state, forced to live in slums, cornered in a housing development to be preyed upon by criminals and drug dealers, and unable to take a job without losing money on the deal? Only politicians and bureaucrats benefit from welfare -- and that's why every welfare reform leads to bigger budgets and more people on the dole."

Reforming Welfare

As the President put it:

The goals of our public welfare program must be positive and constructive. . . . The welfare program must stress the integrity and preservation of the family unit. It must contribute to the attack on dependency, juvenile delinquency, family breakdown, illegitimacy, ill health, and disability. It must reduce the incidence of these problems, prevent their occurrence and recurrence, and strengthen and protect the vulnerable in a highly competitive world.

A New York Times editorial hailed this overhaul, pointing out that spending more now to retrain and reunite families will pay off in lower welfare bills later:

The President's welfare message to Congress yesterday stems from a recognition that no lasting solution to the problem can be bought with a welfare check. The initial cost will actually be higher than the mere continuation of handouts. The dividends will come in the restoration of individual dignity and in the long-term reduction of the need for government help. Perhaps it isn't overstating the point to say, as the President did, "The days of the dole in this country are numbered."

Maybe -- at last -- the welfare mess will be solved.

Meanwhile, Back in the Real World . . . 

The welfare "mess" that those presidents promised to clean up was one we would gladly settle for today.

President Kennedy's reforms were meant to fix the problems created by 30 years of federal welfare. The New Deal had stuck the federal government's metaphorical nose into what had historically been a local issue -- social welfare. During those 30 years, federal policies toward the poor destroyed their ambition and destroyed their families.

Traditionally, welfare had always been considered a temporary expedient -- something to take care of a widow until her children were old enough to support her, or something to tide a worker over until he found a new job. It was never meant to be a way of life.

Someone close to the welfare recipient monitored his situation -- the someone being a representative of a private charity or of the local government's welfare department.

But the entry of the federal government made welfare impersonal -- like banking by mail. In some cases federal welfare workers monitored the "clients," but the rules were set hundreds or thousands of miles away, and the checks were dispensed automatically from Washington.

Depersonalized welfare was less successful in rescuing people from their misfortunes. Fewer lives were rehabilitated. And many people were subverted as welfare became an opportunity, rather than a source of stigma.

Still, as of 1962, the federal government was only a minor participant in the ugly business of demoralizing the poor, and the problems were minuscule compared to today's. In 1962 the federal government spent only $31 billion on social welfare and insurance programs, while state and local governments spent $32 billion.

And the number of poor people in America had been shrinking rapidly.

Although the government's statistics don't track this trend prior to 1950, the trend away from poverty had persisted throughout the 20th century. Except during the Great Depression years, America was becoming steadily more prosperous -- and almost everyone was benefiting.

How It All Changed

The federal government's biggest contribution to welfare was to make enrollment permanent, rather than a temporary expedient. Welfare became a right -- one to which you're entitled if most other people make more money than you do. No more monitoring, no more pressure to get back on your feet, no more need to change the habits or way of living that pulled you into poverty. Your only duty was to walk to the mailbox once a month to pick up your check.

By the 1990s the welfare system was a shambles. In 1991 the federal government spent $676 billion on social welfare of one kind or another -- 20 times the 1962 level -- and state and local governments spent $489 billion, largely to qualify for federal welfare programs.

Social welfare spending by all levels of government had increased to $1,165 billion ($1.1 trillion) in 1991, from $63 billion in 1962. And the money spent for public assistance (what we think of as pure welfare) by all levels of government increased to $180 billion in 1991 from $5 billion in 1962 -- the year President Kennedy promised to reform the system.

How Welfare Hurts People

Welfare costs us plenty. But it also destroys lives. It perverts the natural incentives of everyone who is touched by it. Here are some examples:

AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) pays money to Mom only if there's no Dad at home, so -- surprise! -- Dad goes away.

A teenage girl can become independent of her parents by getting pregnant and receiving welfare; otherwise, she must live off her parents and obey their rules. Which life is more attractive to most teenagers -- being a mother with her own source of income or living under the thumbs of her parents?

Federal job-training for welfare recipients circumvents the need for a teenager to stay in school and learn how to make a living.

The income test for welfare makes a low-paying job seem pointless. This eliminates the incentive for a young person to get the all-important first job, and so he never gains the experience needed to get a job that would pay more than welfare.

The availability of welfare reduces the incentive to save for emergencies. And once people don't have savings, what else can they do but go on welfare when trouble strikes?

The people who have been seduced by welfare have become wards of the state, unable to fend for themselves, with no self-respect and no self-confidence.

Is this compassion?

Everybody in the Pool

After reading a report on the welfare system published by the Joint Economic Committee, Merritt Ierley observed: ". . . it would seem . . . that nearly every citizen ought now to be eligible for something, at some time or another."

And indeed, there is statistical justification for suggesting that income security or social welfare (what started out as public charity) is for everyone. The report of the Joint Economic Committee included an estimate of beneficiaries, program by program. If those estimates are added together, the total comes to 201,089,614. The estimated 1974 population of the United States was 211,389,000.

To be sure, a great many of the 201 million were duplicates -- people who were recipients of public support under different categories. And a great many of the 211 million Americans never received any form of public assistance. Yet the sheer numbers make their point.

And of course, the 1974 inquiry into welfare led to more reforms, which led to more programs, which led to more money, which led to more welfare recipients.

The Cost

The one constant during the 30 years of the War on Poverty has been the drain on the taxpayer. It never stops. Here are some of the costs run up on your behalf from 1965 just through 1993:

• Federal public assistance (welfare) spending totaled $1.4 trillion (equivalent in 1999 dollars to $2.5 trillion).

• Total public assistance spending by all levels of government amounted to $2.2 trillion ($3.9 trillion in 1999 dollars).

• Federal spending for all forms of social welfare (education, social insurance, and so on) totaled $9.1 trillion ($16.6 trillion in 1999 dollars).
  
• Spending by all levels of government for all forms of social welfare has totaled $15.3 trillion ($28.1 trillion in 1999 dollars).

• Your family's share of the public assistance bill came to $50,155 (in 1999 dollars).

• Your family's share of the bill for all social welfare came to $363,466 (in 1999 dollars).

If the money had actually achieved some of the goals promised, someone might try to make a case that it's worth destroying the Constitution in order to help people. But the programs have been absolute failures.

I don't want to put impure thoughts in your head, but can you imagine what you could have done with that money if the government hadn't taken it from you?

Do you think it might be time to put a stop to this?

Reform Welfare?

Over and over during the past 35 years, the politicians have claimed they've learned how to fix the welfare system. We've seen one reform after another. We've been treated to recurring news stories of the success of federal programs -- complete with anecdotes of former welfare recipients whose lives were turned around when government job-training made them self-sufficient at last.

But despite all the new programs, the good news, and the anecdotes, the number of welfare recipients doesn't decrease, the cost doesn't shrink -- and the epidemic of pregnancies, family breakups, and crime continues.

A 1988 reform, implemented in 1990, was aimed particularly at reducing the number of people on the rolls of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). But over the next four years, the ranks of AFDC grew 29% -- to 14.2 million from 11.0 million.

After the reporters have published their success stories and gone home, the cold hard truth is that new programs just make things worse. And the next welfare reform isn't going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Ending Welfare as We Know It

But still they try -- or claim to. In 1996 President Clinton and Congressional leaders proclaimed "the end of welfare as we know it."

But federal spending for "income security" was $226 billion in 1996, and it is $256 billion in 2000.

And new welfare programs are being created on a regular basis, such as a $24 billion entitlement for children's health care, and a $500 tax credit for people who pay no income taxes.

The only reform worthy of the name is to get the federal government out of welfare altogether -- just as the Constitution dictates -- and leave local governments to return to the "temporary expedient" view of welfare. With today's understanding of the inadequacies of government, it's quite possible that citizens in many states might persuade their fellow citizens to turn welfare completely over to private charities, where true compassion can be found.

Compassion

Would it be hard-hearted to do away with welfare entirely? Perhaps the question should be: Is it compassionate to teach people they can't survive without government help?

Was it compassionate to run up bills of $363,466 for your family to pay? Is it compassionate to leave no one responsible for himself, and make everyone responsible for everyone else?

It isn't compassionate to force people to pay for projects one thinks are good.

Those who truly can't help themselves will get better care from people who help voluntarily. The genuine compassion of volunteers has the best chance of leading the needy out of dependency -- rather than deeper into it.

And for those who can help themselves, but who may have lost the habit, the best we can do is to set them free. For their sake, we should get the government out of the economy, to open more opportunities for the unskilled and the inexperienced.
No government program can turn people into responsible citizens. The only way to make anyone understand responsibility is to set him free to see the consequences of his own acts.

Transition

Would a transition program ease the move from today's welfare system to a completely private, voluntary system?

We have to remind ourselves over and over that government doesn't work. So any government program to ease people off welfare -- by retraining them or educating them -- won't work any better than the current welfare system works.

If you demand a transition period of a couple of years or so, you may as well resign yourself to eternal welfare -- to another trillion dollars or more in bills run up in your name -- because multi-year government programs never lead to the results promised. The politicians will go back on their promise to terminate a program as soon as public attention turns elsewhere.

The next President will be concerned with the budget for the 2002 fiscal year that begins in October 2001. He will address the nation shortly after taking office in January 2001. He should announce to all people receiving welfare checks from the federal government:

If I have my way, your federal welfare payments will end in eight months. So you have eight months to turn your life around, to find a job, to learn how to take care of yourself.

We expect to pay you for those eight months. So if you get a job tomorrow morning, you can get two checks each month for those eight months. Or you can wait until the last moment to change things. But even if you haven't found a job in eight months, your checks from the federal government will end. So what are you going to do?

What Kind of America Do We Want?

We have to decide what kind of country we want.

• Do we want a country in which everyone is dependent on the government? In such a country, everyone pretty much works under compulsion -- because most of what he earns is taken from him -- and then receives his pittance from the government, doled out to him as though he were a child on an allowance.

• Or do we want to live where people are self-reliant, proud of their ability to take care of themselves -- in a country where people get to keep what they earn, and so produce far more of value to society.

The Soviet Union showed us where the first system leads. America used to be an example of where the second one leads. Today we are halfway between the two systems, moving gradually toward the Soviet system, in which the state controls everything. The so-called "middle way" or "third way" is really a transition from freedom to slavery.

It isn't possible to give government just a little control over the economy and our lives. Once we cede that power to government, it uses the power to take more from us. That's why every year the government makes more of our decisions and leaves us with less control over our own futures.

We've already gone so far that it will require a tremendous effort to recapture our lives. If we wait another few years, it may be too late. By then we may not have the resources, the power, or the freedom to reclaim our country and our liberty.

The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have made it clear that they like the present system. They advocate new programs to "help people" -- either new subsidies for new privileges to new recipients, or new programs that will give politicians the power to dole out your money to politically favored "faith-based" organizations or other charities. The latter idea will destroy private charity in America just as surely as federal aid to education has decimated private colleges and local schools.

Only Libertarians are proposing to take the federal government completely out of an area where it has no constitutional authority. Only Libertarians believe you should keep all the money you earn and decide for yourself who deserves your help.