As far as I can tell, there
are four arguments against the federal government providing any kind of welfare
to its citizens. Well, actually three arguments and one reason. Let's dispense
with the reason - resentment. People just seem to resent anyone else getting
anything that they don't get or wouldn't want. Thus, when someone receives a
government check, someone else is going to resent it - reasons, needs, economic
benefit notwithstanding. Many people even resent Social Security. So let's just
dispense with resentment. It's nothing but an emotion.
The three arguments against government-provided
social welfare are cost, addiction, and vote buying. People opposed to government
welfare are convinced that the government cannot afford it. People opposed to
government welfare are also convinced that welfare robs people of the
initiative to work, makes them lazy and dependent, and addicts them to
government support. People opposed to government welfare are convinced that
politicians bribe voters with promises of free stuff. I have a few thoughts on
each of these arguments.
First - costs. Welfare paid
for by the states does typically cost state taxpayers money. That's because the
states must collect revenue in order to spend and revenue collected by most
states takes the form of state income, property, and sales taxes. Except for
federally provided money, states spend money collected from their residents. So
yes, state-run welfare costs the taxpayers money. But this is not so at the
federal level. Federal spending is not dependent on, or even related to,
federal taxation. Because the federal government creates dollars by spending,
welfare funded by federal spending does not cost taxpayers a dime. In fact,
federal welfare adds dollars to the economy providing a degree of stimulus
which promotes increased private sector spending which promotes greater private
sector production which promotes private sector job creation which lessens the
need for many welfare payments. So rather than argue that welfare costs the
government money, I would argue conversely that federal welfare adds to the
country's economic growth. I would further think that all government welfare
should be paid for by the federal government, not the states, even if the
states were to continue to administer the programs.
Second - addiction. Face it,
there will always be some relatively few cases in which welfare recipients grow
dependent on the government dole for an extended period of time or even a
lifetime. In fact, Social Security is a form of federal welfare that lasts a
lifetime and sometimes longer and I am certain that few, if any, Social
Security recipients have ever chosen to quit receiving their payments because
they already make enough money to get by. Make no mistake, Social Security is
every bit as much welfare as food stamps and section 8 housing. We think we
paid for Social Security with our payroll taxes, but as we've already
discussed, federal payroll taxes are just federal taxes and as such, they just
remove dollars from circulation and destroy them. Federal spending is not
funded by federal taxes - remember? But I digress. If federal welfare promotes
laziness and dependency, then do not all sources of welfare promote laziness
and dependency? Welfare is welfare is it not? You can grow as dependent on the
largesse of your parents or siblings as you can the federal government. Is it
any less moral for the federal government to provide someone money for food
than for the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or local soup kitchen or homeless
shelter to provide food or money for food. Does it really make sense that welfare
provided by the federal government causes more welfare dependency than welfare
provided by private means? If I am hungry and broke what difference does it
make to me where the welfare comes from? If I am prone to dependency, I can
grow just as dependent on the Salvation Army as I can the federal government.
To argue that federal welfare breeds dependency is to argue that all welfare
breeds dependency.
Finally - vote buying. People
vote in their own best interests whether those interests are promises of tax
breaks, new roads, federal spending on pet projects, or the promise of welfare.
Pick your poison. 'Nuff said.
You may choose to oppose
federal welfare, that's your right. But just don't be so quick to convince
yourself that because the welfare is provided by the federal government that it
is inherently bad.
