Within the socio-economic context of America exists an ongoing dilemma concerning social welfare. Pro-welfare individuals explain that citizens have a social responsibility to help those in need. They argue that welfare is the means by which individuals with no income may construct healthy lives. They go on to say that welfare is merely a stepping-stone to a bettering of the individual. Pro welfare individuals support fiscal assistance to those in need because it is morally sound.
On the other side of the spectrum are the anti-welfare individuals. They argue that welfare is slowly leaching on taxpayer’s dollars with no end in sight. The United States government spends copious amounts of dollars on social welfare. Here are the “mind- blowing” numbers:
“The total cost of means-tested federal and state welfare programs equaled $305 billion in fiscal year 1992 (the latest year for which complete statistics are available), or about 5.2 percent of GDP. We estimate that figure will exceed $350 billion, or 5.3 percent of GDP, for fiscal year 1994. This is the highest level of welfare spending in history, whether measured in inflation-adjusted constant dollars or as a percent of GDP. Today's total welfare spending is almost three and one-half times the $106 billion (in constant dollars) spent on welfare in 1980; the year Ronald Reagan became president. Welfare spending is more than 35 times the $9.6 billion spent on welfare in 1965, when the War on Poverty began. Today, America spends more on welfare than on national defense.[1]
Welfare is supposed to be a temporary agreement for the needy, however, for taxpayers; it is a constant and forced commitment. Others argue that tax money for the social welfare program could be used more efficiently (i.e. education, medical research, roads, etc.).
While both of these standpoints are valid in themselves, they fail to consider the effects welfare has on the individuals. The pro-welfare crowd is preoccupied in doing what is morally right. But, who is to define what is morally right? Who establishes if welfare is building dependent individuals, rather than independent? The anti-welfare individuals, on the other hand, greedily worry about themselves and their tax dollars.
Both groups selfishly indulge in themselves and fail to consider the issue at hand: What effects does welfare have on the recipients themselves? Does the country’s morale suffer as a whole because of this?
Welfare may have deleterious effects on both people and country because it could deprive the individual of self-worth, ultimately lowering the general morale of the country. “One of the problems with welfare has always been that it discourages people from fending for themselves.”[2] This is because rather than producing a service for the improvement of self, welfare establishes an attractive commodity that may lead to conformity. When receiving welfare a person may cease to progress both personally and socially. He or she often increasingly grows comfortable depending on others to live an unfulfilling life. The means by which these commodities are established include: lack of effort, social pressures, laziness, and apathy.
In spite of efforts to improve the welfare system, there are still many who grow with a deep rooted dependence of the system. Individuals with no ambition for improvement and no regard for those who surround them will always exist in the welfare system. An example of this is single mothers.
“…As welfare benefits have increased, so has single motherhood, one of the surest routes to poverty. Single mothers make up one-third of those on welfare and account for most long-term dependency.”[3]
Despite the increase in benefits, there still exists an increase in dependence. This is because welfare is not the cause of the solution it is the cause of the problem.
Some argue that welfare acts like a “safety net” to those who suffer from complete economic misfortune. However, economic misfortune is innate given the very nature of economics. Not all will be successful in the market system. When in the economic system one must be prepared to suffer monetary loss simply because that is the nature of economics. When the individual suffers monetary loss he or she must understand that it is entirely his or her fault, not because they caused their own misfortune, but because they chose to engage in a system that by definition fluctuates. Economic loss is entirely the fault of the individual! “The worst message the poor in this country ever got was that poverty was not heir fault… Poverty is the fault of the poor”[4]
The creator of welfare himself, Franklin D. Roosevelt stated the following in his 1935 Budget Address:
“Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” [5]
The founder of welfare himself does not fail to assert that prolonged welfare may have negative effects on its recipients. It is meant to be a temporary solution to a problem, not an absolute solution. The problem of welfare is not one of aid; rather it is one of wealth.
There exist two types of wealth: material wealth and moral wealth. We define material wealth as tangible objects that we can adhere monetary value to. Material wealth can also be defined as the objects by which our lives become more comfortable. This sort of wealth may include: cars, homes, gadgets, etc. Although most of material wealth may be unnecessary it is nonetheless the product of some level of achievement. While one person may have a low-income salary, and buy a C.D. player, another may have a more substantial salary and buy an iPod. Regardless of the income amount, importance is placed on the idea of “work” itself. Work, no matter what the pay, is worthy and respectable. The value of work itself is emphasized.
Moral wealth, on the other hand, is more difficult to quantify. Moral wealth is the abstract gain a person receives as a product of work. These may include self-confidence, happiness, tranquility, and a general sense of accomplishment. Moral wealth is the fuel that encourages people to progress and improve. For example, a person is more inclined to spend money that they have been given for free, rather than money they have earned. There seems to be attached value of accomplishment to the things we have worked for. This attached value is moral wealth. The idea that we have applied effort and gotten a satisfaction that no one can deprive us of.
However, Material wealth and moral wealth are mutually exclusive. They are not a result of each other. A person can have copious material wealth, but absolutely no moral wealth and vice versa. This is the case in some wealthy kids that inherit large sums of money from their parents and yet are miserable. This is also the case in welfare aid; because it is given to us, mental wealth cannot be extracted. This distinction between being given something and earning something is key in the understanding of the negative effects of welfare on its recipients. Mental wealth is at the essence of a person’s happiness. Although material wealth is important, material wealth without mental wealth is futile.
Both material wealth and mental wealth are products of work. Without work one lacks both, no exceptions. Pro-welfare groups argue that welfare recipients are doing work, as work is a requirement for welfare. Although this is true, one has to look at the reason for the work. Some welfare recipients work for eligibility. Work for the wrong reasons does not produce results; rather it deprives the individual of self and energy. This could be understood as moral slavery.
Moral slavery, forced labor with no moral pay, destroys people to their core. Most people who receive welfare have absolutely no means by which they can achieve mental wealth. The lack of material and mental wealth destroys people. Since they have neither, they are but zombies; empty people lacking the essence of life. Material and mental wealth must be earned in order to reap the benefits of improvement and progress. It cannot be merely handed down as a gift. Material and mental wealth are particular to a person; when given away they loose all their intrinsic values and become nothing.
This disease of the mind and soul not only may affect those in welfare, but may also carry on to others. The mask of welfare is the illusion of commodity seemingly attractive to others. The more time an individual deceives himself of this commodity, the harder it is to break the vicious cycle. Commodity and laziness act like a drug to the individual, producing no positive results, and gradually embedding itself into the psyche.
This addictive characteristic of commodity may act like an epidemic to the soul of the countries work ethic. Gradually spreading from those in welfare to all! The laziness of the individual multiplies and affects the nation as a whole. This is exemplified by the aforementioned quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt. “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”
The continued dependence of relief destroys not only the individual, but also the country itself. There are some that uncover the luring mask of conformity, and discover the grotesque disease of the mind and soul lying underneath. Even those who come to this realization are not emancipated from its effects. When overwhelming amounts of apathy exist, it becomes increasingly hard for the active to progress. The lazy radiate apathy, creating a viscous environment, making it harder to tread through the world.
The continued dependence of welfare may have devastating effects on the individual and the country. Lives cannot be handed on a silver platter. Failure is essential in the creating of efficient individuals. Life must be earned.
[4] James P. Danaher “Communism, Capitalism, and Christian Community” Christian Ethics Today Magazine
[5] O'Connor, Brendon. "THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF 'WELFARE DEPENDENCY'." Australian Journal of Social Issues 36.3 (Aug. 2001): 221-12. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 16 Sep. 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment