Serving the University of Toledo community since 1919.

Does welfare provide assistance or encourage laziness?

Philemon Abayateye, IC Columnist

image_pdfimage_print

Our presidential campaigns thrive on discussing what the proper role of government is in people’s lives. This is the contest between “trickle-down economics” and “trickle-down government.” Just asking, is it possible for government to concurrently promote both ideas successfully? I’m thinking about whether government welfare programs for the poor — such as housing assistance, food stamps, supplemental security incomes, school lunch, Head Start or No Child Left Behind — necessarily encourage a culture of laziness, the “welfare queen” phenomenon. Or, could it be a demonstration of America’s compassionate spirit in providing assistance to cushion its less-privileged?

For many years, both private and public Americans have provided exemplary humanitarian aid to combat such misfortunes as poverty, famine and ill-health to the world’s most deprived populations. Yet, at home, a significant share of the country’s families, individuals and even veterans live in poverty. Our society is so against providing public assistance for the poor. It’s not the government’s place to ensure that those without much have enough to live. People must earn what they get, right?

The reasoning behind this thought process? All Americans are supposedly born into societies where people have equal opportunities to prosper. Every American is free to try, free to succeed and free to fail.

But we know that’s not accurate. No doubt, some people successfully beat the odds, acquire good education, good jobs, and break out of the cycle of poverty in spite of their low economic status at birth, but this is not the case for the majority. Don’t take my word for it until you go see the nature of public infrastructure and services in downtown America. Once you have, come back for a debate. How could children born to these crumbling communities possibly have the same opportunities to succeed as their counterparts from such affluent communities?

Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama answered the question about this role of the federal government. Obama said, “I believe that the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create ladders of opportunity and frameworks where the American people can succeed.” Romney’s response was not different when he said, “We’re endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared for — by one another.”

My conclusion is that the majority of Americans are not opposed to the basic principle of providing assistance to the poor. What they fear is how much influence that action gives the government over people’s choices. Americans would help the poor through private effort rather than supporting government action to involuntarily take money from citizens to redistribute to the poor. I must agree that these are important concerns. Yet, when private action is absent or inadequate, the government should be able to provide some anchor of support for its less privileged because, even in the most generous country, there’s a limit to the extent of altruistic private action.

I’m all about celebrating individual initiative. I’m about encouraging individuals to succeed on their own terms, but when people are just too weak to succeed on their own terms, there’s nothing more shameful about their government’s helping them than it is for individuals applying for private loans. Of course, the difference is that most of these poor folks don’t have the needed credit to access private, favorable-interest loans. For the majority of us, there was that family member, mentor, teacher or institution that went out of their way to help us through the rough times. So why is it wrong for poor folks or communities to count on their government in their times of trouble? Gone were the days when people cared more about their fellow men, about the welfare of the entire community, than they cared about their personal interests.

There’s nothing wrong with showing our own fellow citizens the same American compassion that we’ve exemplified in deprived parts of the world. In communities where private enterprise and philanthropy is inadequate, our government should be able to provide programs that revive communities by generating jobs, improving quality of crumbling schools, investing in public transportation infrastructure, reducing crimes and providing assistance to folks that need it. I agree with the president that the idea of being an American is not just one that defines people’s nationality. Instead, “It describes the way we’re made. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others.”

But maybe it’s just too difficult to help the little guy when you simply hate the safety net. Whatever it is, spare me the political and ideological explanations if they don’t improve the human condition. We’re not only artisans of our own fortunes. We’re artisans of the fortunes of others, too. As they say, onus pro omnibus, omnes pro onu: one for all, all for one.

Philemon Abayateye is a doctoral student in geography and planning.

Print Friendly

2 Comments

  • Prince Ofoe Akoto

    Hmmm. I don’t know if I am fit to comment on your opinion. For I have not seen the nature of public infrastructure and services in downtown America. But I have seen classes dancing the musical chair under and around hamartan and wet June trees in countryside Ghana. I have also seen future leaders die before they become anything close to a leader due to malaria attack not because there are no medicals but because they cannot afford to reach the nearest health center. And before I shed any of those tears again, I must say I still see a classmate of my who had a better grade than I did pushing the handcart along the streets of Ashaiman only because he couldn’t afford to pay fees to further his education. Once again I must admit that I have not seen the nature of public infrastructure and services in downtown America only those in countryside Ghana.

    Yes I agree that the welfare state must not end up creating lazy citizens. But I also believe that the state must not encourage people to take up initiative, have choice and no shame after they are destroyed in their nothingness.
    Whether the beneficiaries of state interventions, as we call it here in
    Ghana, have freedom of choice or not should depend on how and when the state sets up the dining table.

    [Reply]

  • Themistocles Pierre

    I spent much of my adult life (thus far) on various forms of government assistance. In the end, it’s not good for anyone.

    [Reply]