Economic Virtue

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.