Beyond "welfare as we knew it": Old principles for a new paradigm Reviewed by Frank Conte, BHI Publications Editor

From NewsLink, Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 1996

"No American social program has been so unpopular, so consistently for so long, as welfare," notes Charles Murray in his contribution to American Perestroika, a compilation of vibrant critiques of welfare.

It is not merely the $210 billion the federal government doles out for welfare each year that troubles reasonable people. It is an ethos, a way of life that makes welfare unbearable even for reluctant reformers like President Clinton.

If, Murray observes, the money were buying peaceful communities and healthy children, who but the most draconian partisan would argue against it? However, the $5.4 trillion the federal government has expended since the Great Society has brought failure, whether measured by illegitimacy rates, the decline in the quality of urban life or the break-up of the traditional family.

Richard M. Ebeling, the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College, has edited American Perestroika, a slim volume consisting of ten thoughtful perspectives on "ending welfare as we know it. "

In his own essay, Ebeling tackles the philosophic underpinnings of the modern welfare state, tracing its lineage to Bismarck and the American intellectuals greatly impressed by German scholarship. The adoption of German-style welfarism proved to be a fatal conceit because adherents believed they could transform society without accounting for human nature. What resulted was the idea of entitlement -- the right to housing, food and medical security -- and, the playing field, namely the political arena.

In this arena, the social engineers, operating on a vague notion of common property, were able to lower the costs of acquiring political privileges and shift them elsewhere, a manuever that favored political movements and their leaders who believe in tax, spend and elect. But as Richard Wagner observes in "Progress, Poverty and Democracy," the poor have not fared well even under this regime that flirts with social democracy.

It is ironic that the economists who contribute to American Perestroika are more aware of the alienation induced by government welfare than are Great Society enthusiasts. As the economist Dwight Lee notes in "Poverty, Politics and Personal Responsibility," if one were truly compassionate, one would argue against government transfers. "Indeed, a primary attraction of government welfare programs is that they largely eliminate the need for those who are paying for these programs to feel any real sense of responsibility for either the cost to themselves or the consequences to others, including the poor."

Within this context, journalist and scholar Marvin Olasky offers a pragmatic solution to restoring a sense of responsibility in the poor and nonpoor. During the 19th century, small platoons of private charitable agencies were highly effective in helping the poor. Charity was often dispensed with many strings attached and obligations were foisted upon both giver and beneficiary. Recalling the past success of these agencies, Olasky outlines seven principles for real welfare reform: affiliation, bonding, categorization, discernment, employment, freedom and God. Combined, they restore a spiritual dimension the State can never replace.

However, the modern interpretation of the constitutional theory of separation of church and state is the specter haunting Olasky's "effective compassion." Obstructionists may find it hard to pass up the opportunity to challenge any privately-provided welfare plan on the grounds that the funding of religiously inspired providers violates the wall of separation.

But that will not be easy thanks to a readable, ground-breaking study by political scientist Stephen V. Monsma titled, When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money.

The social welfare role of nonprofit charitable organizations dates back to colonial times, withstands Madison's worry about an established church, impresses Tocqueville and today employs more people than the federal government and the 50 state governments combined. This "third sector," which includes a substantial religious contingent, has always helped government meet public policy objectives. For example, the early child welfare agencies were almost exclusively established by churches and religious societies. So were a variety of schools for Native Americans, relief agencies and hospitals.

In fact, says Monsma, the "impregnable wall" doesn't stop the current flow of public money to the religious nonprofit sector. Approximately 75 percent of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese's $1.75 billion budget comes from government resources for services such as health care, mental health, and foster care for children.

Monsma argues persuasively that religious organizations that receive public funds "have been put in a legally uncertain, vulnerable position." Unlike the policy elites that ostensibly believe religion is a private matter, Monsma defends the autonomy and integrity of religious groups who meet the temporal needs of the poor as well as their rights to public resources. To force a religious group to give up its regimen of prayer for recovering drug addicts in a bona fide treatment program, for example, is to impinge upon its religious liberty even if it is publicly funded. To do so is to expel religious nonprofits from the public square and harm the choices made by the poor and the disadvantaged.

Expanding upon earlier work, Monsma proposes the idea of "positive neutrality." Simply stated, "positive neutrality holds that the First Amendment religious freedom language should be interpreted so as to assure the neutrality of government toward persons and groups of all faiths and those of none."

Under such a paradigm, public money could flow to religious programs if they meet three basic conditions. One, they are of a temporal or "this-world" nature. Two, they are free of teaching hatred or intolerance. And three, they are accountable to overseers of the public treasury.

Advocates of "compassion tax credits" can take comfort in the principles outlined in When Sacred and Secular Mix. Monsma makes the strongest case for further employment of religious organizations in the delivery of publicly financed social services. This book could prove to be a very good guide.

NewsLink is the quarterly newsletter of the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research at Suffolk University. © 1996-2005. All rights reserved.

 

HTML format revision on 24-Mar-2005 1:56 PM