Al Hunt, the most reliably liberal member of CNN's Capital Gang, had a revealing choice for his Outrage of the Week on the September 13, 2003 show.
Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Senator who recently likened gay behavior to bestiality is at it again. In opposing additional childcare funds for poor welfare-to- work participants, he argued, according to the Los Angeles Times, "making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing."
At the same time, he has championed every tax cut and every tax break for the rich. Santorum believes in the class struggle as long as it's only the poor who struggle.
As a libertarian, I oppose government welfare programs for a number of reasons, but I can understand some of why people would support them. Human empathy makes you want to alleviate suffering, and help the needy. That's reasonable.
However, you have to work with a reality principle. Giving out welfare works against our overall economic health in obvious ways that no intelligent person could miss. For starters, the more the government hands out, the less motivation people have to do things for themselves. This applies to me, you, and everyone else.
Also, the more stuff the government gives away, the more someone else has to be taxed to pay for it. Higher taxes result in less motivation from the other end. If I can get $200 a week for not working, or $400 to work- minus $100 in taxes- then I'm only really making $2.50 an hour. I'd be DUMB to do that.
You might support SOME government welfare programs anyway. You may calculate that ameliorating the worst suffering in society is so important that we'll just have to accept some damage to our basic capitalist incentive structure.
Article comments
1 - JR
I thought Mark Shields was the most reliably liberal.
I actually agree with you on struggle: it builds character.
The problem with your argument on taxes and motivation is that Santorum is supporting tax CUTS. Now, given that worker productivity is at an all-time high, I somehow don't think the current tax rates can be accused of demotivating workers and cutting into our overall economic health. So why do we need to cut taxes, hmm?
Likewise, I don't hear about many millionaires choosing to quit their jobs because they think they're going to get a better deal on welfare.
I just don't see the need for tax cuts for the rich right now. And if at the same time mothers in the welfare-to-work program are leaving their children home alone for lack of affordable childcare, or if participants are missing work to stay home with their kids; well, that is kind of outrageous, isn't it?
2 - The Theory
Thing is, LIFE isn't fair. Struggle is the essence of life. Overcoming obstacles is how we achieve ANYTHING. Necessity is the mother of invention. Suffering and hardship are not FUN, but they can be tremendously motivational like nothing else.
agree 100%!
3 - Craig Lyndall
The problem with these programs is that you can't argue with their intentions or the spirit of them, but they do open up loopholes for devious people. If these programs were all used by well-intentioned folks the programs would work a lot better.
I mean who doesn't want to help their fellow (wo)man? I know I do, but when my taxes are being collected and allocated I would also like to think that the net effect is good. Instead I feel like a lot of them are getting wasted by overhead and people who cheat and misuse the system.
I don't even know the reality of the situation. I have never seen any numbers, but the media seems to report fraudulent people and situations often enough that I am constantly skeptical of our "helpful" programs and their effectiveness.
So, while I agree that struggle is a valuable part of life, I am in favor of helping people who could benefit. How we determine those who are well-intentioned and those who aren't?
Impossible.
4 - JR
Welfare-to-work is surely an improvement on the previous system of just handing out money; at least now there are some rules in which to find a loophole. As with any program, there's undoubtedly a lot of room for improvement.
5 - Alex
Your argument seems to ignore what Hunt was talking about. It's obvious that, done properly, child care funds are a benefit - they make it possible for persons who otherwise couldn't work to hold jobs without their children being neglected. They facilitate exactly what conservatives say they support - moving welfare recipients into paid jobs.
Now it's possible that the funds Santorum cut were being allocated inefficiently or ineffectively. Perhaps they just gave out free child care to recipients without making any effort to monitor whether the recipients were working. But you don't even try to make that case or examine the program in question. You simply act as if there's no difference between this program and cutting a straight check to welfare recipients to spend as they please without ever seeking work, and that's obviously false.
6 - Steve Rhodes
Tell that to JK Rawling who wrote the first Harry Potter book while she was on welfare and has created more wealth that almost anyone else in the last five years.
7 - Craig Lyndall
Do you really want to give JK Rawling as an example? If this were statistics, we would completely throw her example out because it is an outlier. You can't make judgements based on aberrations.
There is obviously a difference between this program and cutting welfare recipients a straight check. I think there needs to be a balance between what we want people to do and what we enable them to do based on our public services. I think we probably do need a better system for monitoring recipients. In order to receive some of these benefits, I don't think it is unerasonable to ask people to submit to some additional monitoring.
8 - Eric Olsen
"Rowling," and she is now th eposter child for those who support the welfare state. I am all for a safety net, and I'd like to see unemplyment lengthened to a year, as my wife's is about to run out.
9 - Craig Lyndall
The question that I was raising is should she be the poster child? You can't possibly give me the one in a million example as to why a system works or doesn't work.
I understand your position, but I am not sure just because you would use unemployment properly that it would be good for the whole system that the unemployment benefits be lengthened. It is different because Dawn is pregnant, but in general don't we want to encourage people to get back into the workforce as soon as possible?
10 - Eric Olsen
Of course, when there is work. And I see unemployment as something very different from welfare - you've worked, you've paid into it, you get laid off through no fault of your own.
I support welfare reform and am all for making people either work or take classes to propel them into the work force - the culture of dependency is debilitating. But we also need to make quality daycare available to all so low income people can afford to work. Working to pay for daycare is kind of insane.
11 - Craig Lyndall
That, I can definitely agree with. I had no idea what childcare costs were like until I started my most recent job with people who were paying for two or three kids. It is incredible how much it costs. Working to pay for that is like treading water.
12 - Mac Diva
Doctrine of the elect, anyone? Anyone who thinks Santorum means struggle is good for everyone, and not just the poor, is not getting where he is coming from.
13 - Dawn
Struggling is fine, struggling without a hand is a lesson on in futility.
Poverty can happen to ANYONE. Please remember that.
14 - Craig Lyndall
I don't think we want anyone to struggle without a hand, but at the same time, I think we need to make sure we are promoting solutions to problems, not free subsistence that allow problems to persist.
15 - ZElda
>> For starters, the more the government hands out, the less motivation people have to do things for themselves. This applies to me, you, and everyone else. <<
Does it apply to children...? To the disabled...? To the elderly...? How about to businesses?
16 - Zelda
>> Our good feelings about alleviating suffering come at some expense of lower overall societal economic health.<<
What makes our humane "good feelings" a lower priority than other things the government spends its tax money on?
17 - Al Barger
Zelda, I would oppose most of the stuff that the government spends money on, particularly all kinds of corporate welfare. I would like to whack probably at least 2/3 of the federal budget. I would probably put more priority on cutting corporate stuff than on cutting food stamps and such, but it all needs to go. I might start by eliminating ALL agricultural subsidies.
The classic Milton Friedman statement says that in the simplest terms, if you want more of something then subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it.
So yes, if you subsidize people having children they can't afford, then you will get more of it. Hey, don't worry too much about getting pregnant, cause the government will pick up the tab if Daddy doesn't stick around.
I know that's leaving innocent children stuck in the middle, but the basic truth of the principles still applies. Even if you end up favoring some government welfare programs, you HAVE to take these things into account.
One of the advantages of private charities comes from their much more flexible nature. They are not just purely entitlements for anyone who qualifies. They will tend to be much more responsive, and have much better flexibility to nuance individual situations. They are structurally more capable of helping the most needy with the minimum of counterproductive incentives.
18 - Phillip Winn
Buzz! Sorry, Al, but that dog won't hunt.
The old saw that the problem with welfare is that a bunch of women sit around popping out babies for the taxpayer to pick up the tab is tired, but still trotted out by conservatives and libertarians alike without any basis in fact.
I've got three kids and have never taken a dime in gov't handouts to raise any of them, but I can assure you based on personal observation that no amount of gov't subsidy is even remotely close to enough to finance the raising of a child, and there is nobody, and I mean nobody, who thinks otherwise.
The paltry additional amount the gov't pays out per "extra" kid doesn't cover the cost of the kid, period, which makes the idea that the gov't subsidizes the births of poor children laughable, but tragic in its acceptance.
There are plenty of problems with welfare, and lots of ways in which the fed budget could and should be slashed, but trite examples like this one don't help anything. ;-)
19 - Al Barger
Really, Phil, you're saying that the trillions of dollars of social welfare payments don't enter into people's equations? Be serious, now. None of that has any significant bearing on people's behavior? No one would give this any consideration before spreading them legs, or feel more motivated to try to make things work with a boyfriend? Men wouldn't find themselves under considerably more pressure to pay child support? Please.
Tens of trillions of dollars in various kinds of social welfare payments do not discourage individual responsibility in any significant way? What are you smoking, man? Or are you just trying to prove that you're one of those nice compassionate conservatives?
20 - Phillip Winn
I'm saying exactly what I said, Al, which was that the government doesn't provide enough money to make having a child a profitable endeavor. Gov't subsidy makes having a child less of a burden than otherwise, but every child still works out to a net loss.
I spoke pretty clearly, I thought, so I'm surprised you missed the point. Is it more clear now?
21 - Al Barger
I never claimed that welfare provided a "profitable endeavor." Of course, you don't breed children for the express purpose of fattening your bank account with the big bucks from welfare. It does, however, make a significant difference in what you can get by with. That does have a significant impact on people's decision making. Do you deny this?
22 - Phillip Winn
Gee, Al, I read "Hey, don't worry too much about getting pregnant, cause the government will pick up the tab if Daddy doesn't stick around." and thought it was pretty clear. Now you're saying that "Of course, you don't breed children for the express purpose of fattening your bank account with the big bucks from welfare." (emphasis added)
Since that's the only point I wanted to make sure you understood, I guess I've accomplished my goal.