WELFARE: MARXISM IN ACTION
Stuart K. Hayashi
“From each according to ability, to each according to need.” One would have thought that this popular Marxist slogan would lose its appeal with the fall of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, belief in this ideal has refused to dwindle, especially in the United States of America, of all places, which is why the unjust welfare system continues to drain the life fluid of American workers. Welfare’s three main faults lie in its immorality, its obliteration of individual responsibility, and the dependency it creates in its alleged beneficiaries.
Welfare is immoral, because it violates individual rights for the sake of “society,”, and it wreaks havoc on the incentive to produce. Following the line, “From each according to ability . . .”, hard-earned dollars are taxed away, under the threat of violence being initiated against anyone who resists. Those who pay this extortion money have no direct control over where their extorted wealth goes; only miniscule “say” through popular vote. In keeping with, “to each according to need,” this money is transferred to those of whom the government has determined “in need,” through checks, food stamps, social “security,” “free” medical treatment (paid for through other people’s cash), and other programs. Of course, whether or not these welfare recipients are employable but hesitant to work (and must still be cared for because he or she is “in need”), earning minimum wage, unemployable, or out of a job for other reasons, these benefits go only to the “needy” who request it; nothing is done for those in need with too much dignity to demand that government “redistribute” the affluence of its citizens through compulsion.
Under this system, since only “society” is important, there is not only equal distribution of property with unequal output, but also an individual is punished for being productive, while another is rewarded for doing nothing. This results in the perversion of incentives to create, produce, or provide services. An industrious laborer of any sort figures that there is no reason to work, since the harder he or she works, the more he or she will be expropriated. Those who produce nothing have no reason to work, since their lack of earnings place them “in need,” ensuring that they will reap the greatest benefits. This is the reason why everyone—but the communist rulers—grew poor in the Soviet Union, since any form of wealth earned by an individual would be snatched away for the “common good.”
An economic system like this is no different from teachers taking grade points away from A-students and redistributing them to flunking students who need those points desperately. Their need entitles them to unearned points, right? Why should A-students care, when they still have many points left, and they are just plain too selfish to give their fellow classmates their points, correct?!! This author believes that he can safely assume that no sensible teacher would even consider such a proposal, regardless of how he or she feels about welfare, even though the principle is the same. In addition to failing morally, the system creates disaster practically as well.
The fiscal redistribution encourages the avoidance of responsibility, because its premise is that anyone in need or has children in need should not be held accountable for his or her own actions; that it is financially secure individuals, who had nothing to do with their behavior, that must be their burden. Welfare proponents enjoy citing the fact that ninety-five percent of welfare recipient are women with illegitimate children [1] , but what this ignores is who should be held accountable for a pregnancy for which the parents cannot or choose not to accept responsibility for. Also, this attitude snubs options far more humane.
The sanction of a parent’s irresponsibility is outlined in the August/September 1986 issue of Reason magazine, in the article “I was a Victim of Welfare,” by Michael S. Christian—a former child welfare recipient who saw the program’s negative effects and broke free from it. His mother’s reason to place the family under welfare was that his father left the family behind without saying a word. [2] Years after the abandonment, Christian found his father, and asked him why he had neglected his children for so long. The reply was, “Sorry, son, but I had to leave, and I knew the state would take care of you kids and your mother.” [3] Christian was left to wonder what would have happened if there was no welfare. Would his father still have an excuse for his actions? He asks, “Would my father have left in the first place?” [4]
A pregnant girl or woman financially incapable of caring for her own child has a number of options other than going for welfare, all of which directly concern the child’s future. She could have an abortion, or, if she decided not to, she could still put the baby up for adoption. Both of these choices spare the taxpayers from involuntarily doling out more money to keep the baby alive when that is the parents’ job. More importantly, the child would be spared from a life of being in the hands of a person or persons who could not or did not properly care for him or her. In the case of adoption, there would be the possibility that the baby could be placed in a home that had the financial ability to support him or her; not at the coerced expense of others, and he or she would be exposed to the idea that people should not get something for nothing. That would be considerably better than to be dependent on everyone else, and be given the message that he or she would has the “right” to earn nothing—that it is “duty” of the working classes to provide for him or her. Also, just because they would not be related by blood, that does not mean that the adopted parents would be any less loving than the biological mother.
Of course, in all cases where the sex was consensual, the mother could have decided to do the safest thing, which would be to have sex in the first place, or to use contraception. These options were available to the single mother, but, because welfare acts as a safety net, she does not have to face any possible negative effects of her actions. Taxpayers will bear the burden; all this in the name of the “public good.” All this really does is allow the mother to have the child living with her and provide a disserve to the child, primarily because she would rather selfishly have the child living with her, instead of a better environment.
Because the mother herself does not did not have to provide the baby’s medical coverage, food, or the shelter under which both of them lived, she did not have to face the consequences of her decision to have unprotected sex and becoming pregnant (except for the physical pain of childbirth). Without going through the negative effects of such choices, there was no need for her to learn to be more responsible in regard to sex, and she could intentionally or unintentionally have more children without paying the price. Those who would be paying the price were the taxpayers. (This is not to say that this author objects to premarital sex; he only objects to using the law to have other people pay for the consequences.)
It was because of all the new programs established in the 1960’s and ‘70’s that led to the “boom” in the number of single mother welfare recipients, says sociologist Charles Murray. He does not believe that welfare mothers consciously decide to have more children so that they get more benefits, but that the increased number of children was the result of their no longer having to be burdened with bringing in food and paying medical bills. This allowed them to indulge in as much irresponsible sex as they wished, at all the cost of the rich and middle class. [5] In spite of their coerced payments, however, the main victims of welfare are actually the children who receive it.
On the surface, welfare appears to give its recipients certain privileges. According to a survey conducted by Dawn Nold—a welfare recipient-turned-student—in 1995, each welfare household in Texas received over $532 over an average forty-hour work week’s worth of pay, or $13.30 an hour. Also, most of the recipients surveyed thought that their living conditions were more luxurious than those of taxpayers! [6] However, what both many welfare proponents and recipients fail to observe are the numerous ways in which welfare victimizes the poor, especially children.
Examples of this are the way in which the system violates privacy by the way in which it sends social workers to interrogate families. Says Michael S. Christian, the former recipient, the state “takes for itself the right to inquire repeatedly into one’s affairs, financial and personal. It takes away privacy and dignity. . . . These feelings of resentment and humiliation have no place in the analysis of the social engineer, yet the greatest costs of the welfare system.”
Welfare makes recipients, especially children, dependent on the government to hand out benefits, and more so on the taxpayers whose money was taken from them whether they liked it or not. Worse still, it sent children that work is not a necessary part of survival, because the rich, middle class, and working poor will always provide for them. The more they can survive without labor, the more alien the idea of earning becomes. Thus, it takes away the motivation of many kids, who many have otherwise grown up into contributing citizens. Because their lifestyle has made the whole concept unfamiliar, welfare children who fear having a job will have a far more difficult time starting and coping with it than those raised by taxpaying families who teach that productivity is a virtue.
By trapping many children into this web of dependence, the program actually ensures that there will be future generations of recipients, which creates the “need” for having even more money spent on them. Incidentally, this keeps the welfare-promising politicians in office in the welfare districts, and keeps the welfare bureaucracy heavily funded. Why should we assume that their support for the continuation of welfare is necessarily unselfish? While the status quo remains, the children are not given the chance to rise out of poverty.
As Michael Christian puts it, “It [welfare] keeps people in their places. It steals the sense of righteous ambition from the poor.” [7]
Peter Drucker, a highly revered managerial expert, agrees:
“The two worst fiascos among government programs in the post-World War II period are two extremely expensive American ones: low-income housing and welfare. . . . And despite even larger and constantly growing expenditures, the ‘welfare mess’ in the United States is steadily getting worse.
“In fact, a strong case can be made—and has been made—that the poor in America . . . have become the poorer, the more helpless, the more disadvantaged, the more welfare money is being spent on them. American welfare spending encourages dependence. It paralyzes rather than energizes.” [8]
While some people charge that children will surely starve to death without taxpayer aid, Michael Christian disagrees: “Eliminate the redistribution of wealth. What will we [the poor] do without your money? We will struggle, challenge, and win as individuals. Because, as you have always claimed to believe, we are your equals.” [9]
Instead of suffering from the shame of being dependent, and given the message that they are not competent enough to support themselves, children who were once on welfare can venture off into an exciting new world where they can learn the virtues of productivity. Eating a meal bought with money that rightfully belongs to others, every day, can never be as satisfying as eating a single meal that one has bought with money that he or she earned.
Please take into consideration the statements that have been made here. Welfare, the government program which appears outwardly helpful, is really an internal poison that addicts children and makes it more difficult to introduce them to work. Without welfare, the immorality and unfairness would reduce, welfare mothers would have to exercise self-control, and poor children can learn how to live by earning what they want and need, and will hopefully triumph over poverty. Rather than do harm, the repeal of welfare will grant enormous freedom. The rich, middle class, and working poor will no longer be punished for their services, and those who may have ended up trapped in a web of dependence may have, instead, taken a step closer to independence. Let us do away with “From each according to ability, to each according to need,” for good. Instead, let it be, “From each according to ability, to each according to productivity.”
Return to Essay Page!
END NOTES
1 Paul Wade, “No More Payments to Just Sit Around: Can Sundquist Welfare Plan Get Money to Deliver?”, The Commercial Appeal.
2 Michael S. Christian, former child welfare recipient, “I was a Victim of Welfare,” Reason magazine, August/September 1986, reprinted in Poverty: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by William Dudley, (St. Paul, Minnesota: Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 205.
3 Ibid., p. 205.
4 Ibid., p. 205.
5 Charles Murray, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, former senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, “Conservatives, Liberals, Both Wrong on Poverty,” Human Events, December 1984, reprinted in Poverty: Opposing Viewpoints, p. 97.
6 Chris Payne, “Bedford Woman’s Welfare Thesis Gets National Attention,” Fort Wort Star-Telegram, 2 September 1995, p. 1.
7 Christian, op. cit., p. 206.
8 Peter Drucker, managerial expert, The New Realities: Government and Politics in Economics and Business in Society and World View, (New York, NY: Harper-Row, 1989) pp. 69, 70.
9 Christian, op. cit., p. 207.
The above text is Copyright © 1996, 2000 Stuart K. Hayashi, and may not be reproduced by any means without his expressed written consent. All rights reserved.