My daughter in-law, an excellent addition to the family,
suggested I write about something she labeled economic virtue. As I understand it, she was thinking about
the virtue of seeing ourselves as a contributor to society as apposed to having
an entitlement mentality. That is an
interesting subject.
With 25 years working mostly in the area of government
assistance programs, often titled welfare, I’ve seen my share of individuals
who are poster children of the entitlement mentality. I’ve also seen the majority that use
government assistance programs appropriately—meaning as a temporary crutch
until they can get back on their feet again.
Somewhere in between there is an elusive line in the sand that separates
what some have called the worthy poor from those that abuse the system or are
content to let society financially support them for extended periods, even when
they have the ability to support themselves.
Government policy makers have tried to define that line in
the sand by identifying the circumstances in which people find themselves and
determining who is eligible (worthy) and not eligible to receive benefits. In addition, the receipt of employment
support programs are often contingent upon policies that require individuals to
participate in activities that are hoped to lead towards increased earnings and
the end of the need for public assistance for that individual or household. That, it seems to me, is a logical
approach. But, as with most things in
life, the logic can break down when diving into the details.
Without spending a lot of time trying to outline thousands
of pages of public assistance policy, eligibility for programs is usually based
on the income of the individuals or families applying. How much money coming in is weighed against
the size of the household. Some
programs, like Food Stamps, also consider expenses such as rent and utilities
as a deduction against the countable income.
In addition, most programs look at resources or assets—money in bank
accounts, or the value of property that can be sold. Countable income, less allowed deductions, compared
to the household size, and the value of assets form the basic factors of
eligibility for somebody applying for government programs. Contrary to popular belief, illegal aliens
are not eligible for most programs. In
addition, other restrictions can be imposed based on whether a person has quit
a job, is a non-working college student, or is cooperating in collecting child
support from an absent parent. As
mentioned before, some programs require that the person be involved in
educational or job search activities as a condition of getting assistance. These conditions are often waived for
somebody who is aged, a child, taking care of a young child, or considered
disabled by the rules of the program.
These conditions of eligibility for assistance programs form
the government’s attempt to weed out the unworthy poor. But, as with most laws, there are loop holes
and exceptions to the exceptions. It
doesn’t take a lot of looking to find anecdotal circumstances that appear to
demonstrate widespread program fraud or unworthy access to assistance.
Before we get to the meat of my conclusions, let me propose
some definitions to some terms that people casually banter about without having
any universal agreement as to their meaning.
First, the term poor. The
government sets limits of income under which a person or household is
considered in poverty. While the
calculation that goes into these limits is complicated and probably makes sense
at some level and given certain assumptions, it often feels like an arbitrary
number. For my own purposes we will
define a poor person as somebody who cannot, with their income, meet the basic
needs of food, shelter, and life saving medical care. That definition, as with all others, is
subject to a lot of assumptions about what is adequate shelter, food, and
medical care. If a person decides to
live in a nicer apartment or eat more expensive food, or eat more than they need,
and then can’t meet their bills, can they still be considered poor? I don’t know if anybody has those answers
when we get to applying general concepts to individual situations.
The second definition is that of welfare or public
assistance. I remember a day at work
that a disabled individual came into our office and saw a sign that talked
about being on welfare. In a fit of
rage, he tore the sign off the wall while yelling that he was not on
welfare. He considered that any
assistance he got was his right based on his disability and therefore he was
not on welfare. I’m not suggesting his
attitude represents that of other individuals determined disabled by society,
but it does illustrate how different people feel differently about what is
welfare. I think most farmers or
businesses who receive government subsidies or price supports would bristle at
the thought they were getting something labeled welfare, but I would suggest
that welfare is any assistance for which the person or organization does not
provide a product or service at fair market value. Included in that would be food subsidies,
business subsidies, housing assistance, tax credits, educational grants, or
government funded rebates and credits on purchases or investments. Given that definition, most of society has
received or benefites from welfare at one time or another, if not
regularly. All of these programs filter
tax payer money to individuals and organizations without requiring something in
return and meet the definition, therefore, of a redistribution of wealth from
parts of the populace to the other parts.
I would label them as welfare.
Hopefully my ramblings to this point have suggested that the
subject of public entitlement is not as simple as some would like to make it in
their criticisms. That isn’t to say that
all such criticisms are invalid, but they are more often than not
uninformed. In my opinion, unless you
understand enough to present multiple sides of an argument, you probably don’t
have much of an informed opinion. I
would suggest that the real problem isn’t the assistance or welfare itself, but
the individual and societal attitudes that allows and encourages its prolific
use. This I would label an entitlement
mentality.
So, here is my thesis.
We have become, as a society, too dependant on welfare for our daily
life. Further, this reliance on
entitlement programs represents less the fault of government programs and more
on a society that expects outside forces, and especially government, to make
every set-back in life right. This is an
entitlement mentality or attitude that says I’m entitled to the basics of life
regardless of my circumstances or even the efficacy of my decisions. It goes beyond economic assistance programs
to the attitude that we should be able to experience whatever the majority of
society is privileged to experience or have, even if we haven’t the means to
access it. It manifests itself in many
ways such as children who want most if not all of what their successful parents
have without the years of hard work and sacrifice that may have gotten their
parents to that point. It is expressed
in the employee who demands they be rewarded the same as others who put in more
effort and were more proactive in learning the job and in producing better
results.
I would suggest that a government that offers more and more
assistance programs is doing nothing more than responding to the demands of
voters who reward such behavior with votes while often proclaiming the opposite
in their opinions. Many, especially
those labeling themselves as conservatives, want cuts in welfare programs, but
we continue to elect those who support us in the way we feel entitled. In the mean time, we criticize and pass
judgment on those that get other types of assistance. As an example, most people don’t know or
don’t choose to remember that the Food Stamp program (now called SNAP) was
established not primarily as a hunger relief program, but as a way for the
government to offer price supports to farmers and distribute excess
commodities, hence the fact that the program is administered by the Department
of Agricultural and not the Department of Health and Human Services.
So, what can be done?
How do we, as a society, starting with individuals and families, begin
to wean ourselves of a mentality that says we are entitled to so many things in
life? It is hard. It is really hard to look at somebody who has
just survived a hurricane and is without home, or a farmer who has suffered
through years of drought, or a businesses who despite their best efforts are
falling behind competition using cheap foreign labor and say to them, “tough,
life isn’t fair, deal with it as best you can, but the government can no longer
afford to help you or continue to enable an entitlement mentality.” It is hard to draw a line in the sand and say
that everybody on this side are the worthy poor and everybody on that side
should fend for themselves. At some
point all those judgments have to be made as best the decision makers can. But I am suggesting that the solution is not
found in finding where, exactly, to draw that line in the sand.
I believe the solution starts in the hearts of individuals
and families. In individuals it goes
back to President Kennedy’s declaration, “Ask not what your country can to for
you, ask what you can do for your country!”
In addition to the word country, insert words like family, neighborhood,
city, county, state, etc. . . When we
can turn our focus away from what we feel entitled to (our rights) and towards
how we can help ourselves and others (our responsibilities), we will begin to
free ourselves from an entitlement mentality.
As parents and caregivers of children, we must set aside the temptation
to provide them with everything we can, and instead focus on their basic needs
and then teach them work and reward for effort in getting the finer things. Tie allowances to efforts. Teach the consequences of not valuing things
and money. Say no to the latest thing or
the nicest new toy—be it childish toy or grown-up toys. Involve children in budgeting and finance. Be an example of staying out of debt, living
frugally, and preparing for a rainy day with adequate insurance and savings.
We all know of wealthy people who flaunt their economic
advantages. We’ve seen how even the
richest people can end up bankrupt. I
read an article recently that said that the majority of highly paid sports
players end up bankrupt within a few years of leaving their multi-million
dollar salaries. Why is that? Some of us have also seen wealthy people who
don’t live extravagantly, whose children hold down jobs in their youth and help
pay for their educations. This isn’t a
question of what we have, but how we use it, and what our attitudes are towards
what life has blessed, or cursed, us with.
Until we, as individuals and communities, can start to look
in the mirror and begin to correct the attitudes and behaviors that have gotten
us to this point, we cannot realistically expect societies and governments to
change and solve the problems that face us due to our entitlement mentality. Before we are tempted to talk about big
government, the unworthy poor, or all the money wasted on hand outs, whether
they be to individuals or corporations, may I suggest we shut up and put up in
the form of our own houses being put in order.
Is getting out of debt and staying out of debt your priority? Do you live within your means, even if it
means doing with only the basics in food, shelter, and necessary medical
care? Do you look with charity on
others, while holding yourself to the highest standard of self
sufficiency? Do you lobby for and vote
for politicians who tell it like it is, meaning that no budget will be balanced
without cutbacks in even your favorite program?
Finally, do you practice what you preach to others within the confines
of your own home and heart? Only such
will battle and ultimately win against the entitlement mentality.
