Friend, I would like to respond regarding the view that the war on poverty is an inappropriate activity for the federal government. It seems to me that anything worthwhile in life comes with both positives and negatives. Certainly, “the welfare state” is one of them. I am thankful for the nonprofits and charities that bless our country with generous assistance to the needy. I am thankful almost as much for the spirit of generosity and what that implies as for the assistance itself. But like the welfare state, overwhelming reliance on charities to provide assistance for the needy also comes with some minuses.
It
seems to me the primary negative encountered with reliance on the
welfare state is not so much the fact the needy must meet eligibility
requirements and thus attain entitlement, but the selfish attitude of
entitlement that sometimes results. (And I should add that neither do
I find attractive the attitude of entitlement sometimes displayed by
the privileged.) On the other hand, when relying on private
charities, the lack of entitlement to funding for those living on a
subsistence level can create great uncertainty, anxiety, and
privation.
The
war on poverty did not begin in a vacuum. It developed because the
needs of the impoverished were not being met. Since it was in the
vital national interest to assist those in poverty, the federal
government stepped in to fill unmet needs. There is much precedence
for government action of this type.
The
state regularly and traditionally becomes involved when vital needs
are otherwise not being met. For example, consider the need for
education and the establishment of public schools. Certainly one
could argue that public education is inappropriate state action;
there should only be private schools. Those children who could not
afford private school could be sponsored through scholarships from
private non-profits, charities, and the generosity of friends. While
theoretically this makes sense, it seems likely that reliable funding
of scholarships could not be counted upon for everyone. Security is
another vital state interest. Theoretically the police power of the
state could be funded entirely by voluntary contributions. But this
is never done for obvious practical reasons.
While
the well-healed are adept at advocacy, the poor usually are not. It
is remarkable that the war on poverty legislation was ever passed in
the first place, and it may well be reversed in time. What is
undeniable is the existence of children in poverty living under
conditions of great uncertainty and instability. Given millenniums
we probably all can foresee the effective end of poverty; but the
question always remains—what to do today?
