Social Programs - Or How to Keep the Poor Poor

With the Democratic Party now in control of the House, the Senate, and vying for control of the White House in 2008 I think it's relevant to discuss a popular issue with Democrats:  Social Programs. 

Social programs provide some means of financial support or some other type of service to a group of people labeled as disadvantaged.  Typical groups with the "disadvantaged" label are: the poor, the elderly, the young (students), or anyone who is disabled in some way.  Funding comes from tax income into the government which of course comes ultimately from the people.

Now the idea of assisting those less fortunate folks who may be poor or elderly or disabled is a fairly universal desire.  Regardless of ones political beliefs I think it can be said that nearly everybody wants to see all people live a healthy, comfortable life and not be lent to suffering or poverty or any other malady.  The means by which any assistance is applied and funded is source for contention however.

The main school of thought involved in social programs is providing something which a particular demographic of people don't have or cannot afford.  If you're poor, then you can have money (welfare), if you can't afford healthcare then it will be paid for you, if you can't afford a house then your housing can be paid for, if you cannot afford education then it will be provided, etc.  So if you fall into one of the unfortunate categories of the disadvantaged, you can prove that you are part of the target demographic for a particular program and the government raises the necessary funds to provide you with required assistance.  Depending on where you live and the type of service applied for there may be some additional strings but in general this is how it works.

Supporters of social programs claim this is the best way of addressing these ills in society.   Take money from those who are able to provide for themselves and use it to provide for those who can't.  After all, we're all in this together.  And as previously mentioned, no one wants to see other people suffer.

With supporters of a thing always comes critics of that thing as well.  And critics of social programs bring forward many points to consider.

Human beings don't respond well to getting something in return for little or no effort on their part.  It's just an unfortunate aspect of human nature.  People don't tend to appreciate things they didn't pay for themselves.  This isn't a hard and fast rule of course but in general it is true.  If you have worked very hard to obtain something you are more likely to appreciate it versus something that was gained through little or no effort at all.  So there has to be a barter involved in providing someone something in order for it to be worthwhile.  This not only increases the intrinsic value of whatever good or service is being given, but it provides something in return for the giver.  This principle however, isn't the only piece sometimes missing from social programs.  Some do include some form of give and take from the recipients.

Another problem is that people become slaves to handouts.  Giving someone something one month means you're likely to have to give it to them again next month.  And the next and the next and so on.  It's the old "give a man a fish" vs. "teach a man to fish" principle.  So simply providing a benefit without some provision for helping the beneficiary provide it for themselves in the next month only ensures the likelihood that the beneficiary will return once again for the handout.  Some social programs have attempted to address this problem with some varying levels of success.

Before going any further I feel compelled to bring one obvious point to the table : the money the government spends is not just free money.  It comes directly off the shoulders of everyone who works in this country.  Many of them with families of their own and their own sets of problems -   who would likely benefit just as well from keeping that money than to give it to someone else.  Think about how much more of the "American Dream" you could afford if you even were able to keep half of what the government takes from your pay.

When these social programs fail - or at least fail to produce any significant impact on the people they aim to help  - the reaction is usually to throw more money at it (at all of our further expense of course) or develop more programs to address the deficiencies of the other programs (again at our expense).  The logic behind sinking more money into something that isn't working or at the very least isn't producing any significant results is quite baffling but it's a surprisingly common strategy in politics for whatever reason.

The New Deal was a very broad sweeping set of social programs aimed at reducing poverty and unemployment and other social ailments during the Great Depression.  Although many of those programs didn't survive past WWII, there are still significant elements that survive today from the New Deal such as Social Security and unemployment insurance.  Despite this extensive effort, poverty was still a big enough problem in 1964 that Lyndon Johnson saw the need to push his Great Society set of social programs.  The Great Society programs were very broad in scope just as the New Deal programs were.  Addressing many areas such as education, healthcare, transportation, culture, urban development, poverty, housing, and the environment.  With these programs it was Johnson's goal to "end poverty completely."  One would have thought that within a period of time poverty would have been nearly eliminated through this massive effort.  And that we'd live in some near utopia with vibrant inner cities, low unemployment, and high wages. It shouldn't be a stretch to think that many of society's ailments would have long been gone by now in 2007 as a result of all that the Great Society programs brought.  Sadly, the results were dismal and by the 80's many of the Great Society's programs had been eliminated or suffered major cuts in funding due to lack of positive results.

So why is this the case?  Looking at the details of the programs that were passed it appears that the lawmakers were really trying to address the ailments of society in a thoughtful way.  Not simply giving things to people but trying to assist them in becoming productive members of society and giving them the tools to carve out their own piece of the American pie just like everyone else.  The Great Society programs hit all the major areas you hear about from politicians.  Healthcare, poverty, unemployment, everything.  And yet, no drastic results were to be seen from them.  We sit here today in much the same position as we were in 1964 with regard to poverty and other social woes.  If you ask a politician... well a Democratic politician anyway, they'll probably say that we've never done enough for any of these programs to be effective.  Or they'll spout some numbers claiming that they were effective somehow... in some way.  The reality isn't that these weren't good "social programs" as social programs go, it's the mindset that was created as a result of these social programs.  And therein lies the fundamental problem as well as a bit of a paradox.

The truth can be found in the numbers.  Without regurgitating what is already quite well stated by Thomas Brewton in this article (please read this entire article - it contains the all important numbers!!), I can sum it up by saying that social programs have taught people that they are entitled to things - not that they have to work to achieve them.  Sadly this entitlement syndrome still prevails today.  So the end result of all the social programs passed from the 30's to the 60's is the creation of an entitlement class of society.  Effectively creating a mentality that serves to keep impoverished people impoverished.  And paradoxically the very programs aimed at aiding them keep them just comfortable enough to keep them from striving for something more. 

The side benefit of all this is that it creates political opportunity.  Someone needs to come to their rescue.  Someone needs to be their champion.  Nevermind that all previous attempts at helping them through government aid have failed.  More government aid is bound to work.  If nothing else more programs will serve to keep the idea of entitlement alive and well and send the message that "something" is being done to assist them - even if 20 years from now nothing is different except higher taxes as a result.  And as they become slaves to the programs that keep them in their condition, they become loyal followers of those that keep them that way.  It's a golden deal for somebody.  And that somebody so far has been the Democratic party.

Politicians spew blame in all directions except where it is truly applicable.  This blame game permeates into the hearts and minds of the disadvantaged subjects of these social programs and gets regurgitated and indoctrinated into their kids - ensuring a new generation of this entitlement society and a new generation of votes; a new generation of targets for more social programs.  It's a vicious cycle that is incredibly hard for these people to break out of.  The entitlement syndrome creates kids that don't even try in school almost ensuring they'll end up on social programs.  As the rest of the country continues to prosper and sees more and more people moving into the upper middle class, this element of society is left behind.  Left there by their own sense of entitlement and by the politicians who keep them thinking that way.

Democrats don't care about poor people.  They care about votes.  The proof is in the pudding.