The decides upon issue of public welfare
Answers
The Reverend Mr. Gentry is the pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church, Jonesboro, Tennessee.
Americans have long been known to be a charitable people. Unfortunately, government intervention could be changing that. The government has entered and gained monopolistic ascendancy in this field as in so many others. Being charitable makes it a bit difficult for us to speak out against public welfarism, lest we appear to be unconcerned for the needs of the poor. However, there are numerous compelling reasons why we can legitimately decry public welfarism and still maintain—even emphasize—our concern for the less fortunate in our society.
1. Public welfare destroys the personal relationship and interaction which can be achieved through private, local charity. Big government is faceless and cannot express truly empathetic concern for the needy. The human element so essential to aid the poor is sacrificed to computerization.
2. It actually destroys a true sense of genuine charity among the general populace. Charity today is coercively maintained. How many times have you heard complaints about excessive taxation? And what accounts for a very large percentage of our national debt? I used to work in a grocery store and constantly overheard grumbling from the shoppers who were having to pinch their pennies when they observed a heavily loaded shopping cart of choice items being paid for with food stamps. Not only are ill feelings fostered but also there is provided an excuse to shift responsibility when private charities appeal for funds:
"The government has the resources. They will handle the situation."
3. It destroys, through excessive taxation, the capacity of private citizens and organizations to help. Personal income is eroded through redistributive tax schemes, thus leaving fewer funds for personal charity. Remember the recent uproar over the enormous increase in the Social Security tax? There goes some more money that could have been available for private charity.
4. It undermines personal responsibility and incentive in the poor to help themselves. Welfare funds are addictive. Withdrawal is hard.
5. It promotes a false sense of security among the needy. "The government will always be there to take care of me." "My Social Security will always be available to help me financially." According to the Federal Statement of Liabilities issued by the Treasury Department, the Social Security program has about $4 trillion in unfunded obligations! That’s security?
6. It promotes a false sense of equality among minorities. They can either be led to believe they are getting their "fair share" or that they are receiving "remuneration" for past offenses against them. Dependency does not promote equality.
7. It is less efficient than private charity. Private, local charity is true charity: it is voluntary and it is not subject to the bureaucratic filtering process. I have never heard the government or any of its programs praised for efficiency—except by the government and those who head the programs!
8. It promotes conflict among groups clamoring to get their hands on the handouts. Though theoretically (in a Keynesian economic system) fiat money could supply everyone with plenty of money, actually there is at least some restraint upon the government’s printing press (thank goodness for election years!). There is never enough money to make everyone happy; therefore, groups fight to get to the front of the line.
9. It can and often does encourage immorality. The government does not have the same degree of religious and moral sensitivity that can characterize private charities. Illegitimate children are one way to gain additional welfare funds. Or if you decide against illegitimacy, in most cases you can get a "free" abortion. Urban renewal programs have long been derided as consistently producing drug culture, crime infestation areas, and family disruption.
10. It is more open to fraud and criminal abuse than smaller, more easily contained, private charity programs. Newspapers are filled with reports of welfare abuse by criminal elements. This serves as an additional "tax" on the truly needy themselves: scarce resources are filtered away from their target.
Answer:
Explanation:
Public welfare:
In the United States, public welfare has a long history of development and change. Prior to 1900, the majority of duty for providing public aid, or as it was commonly called, "public relief," was shared by local governments and private charitable groups. The need for public relief frequently increased beyond the capacity and occasionally the willingness of local public and private authorities to give necessary help as the country's economy became increasingly industrial and the population became more concentrated in metropolitan areas.
Issue of public welfare:
1. The personal connections and interactions that can be made through private, local philanthropy are destroyed by public welfare. Big government lacks a face and is unable to show genuine empathy for the poor. Computerization comes at the expense of the human aspect, which is crucial to helping the poor.
2. It really undermines the public's ability to feel genuine altruism. Today, charity is kept alive by coercion. How often have you heard people complain about paying too much in taxes? And what makes up a significant portion of our national debt? When I used to work in a grocery store, I would frequently see people complaining about needing to watch their pennies when they saw a fully loaded cart of expensive things being paid for with food stamps. When private charities request money, bad feelings are not only stoked but also a justification for shifting blame is given:
"The government is equipped with them. They will manage the circumstance."
3. It eliminates the ability of individuals and organizations to provide aid by imposing excessive taxes. Redistributive tax policies destroy personal income, leaving less money for private charity. Recall the recent commotion caused by the astronomical Social Security tax increase? More money that may have been accessible for private charity is lost.
4. It erodes individual accountability and the motivation for the impoverished to take care of themselves. Welfare money is a drug. Withdrawal is difficult.
5.In comparison to smaller, more manageable private charity operations, it is more vulnerable to fraud and criminal misuse. Reports of criminal elements abusing the welfare system are common in newspapers. As a result, scarce resources are diverted away from their intended recipient, adding another "cost" on those who are actually in need.
6. It eliminates the middle class's severely taxed incentive to produce. Success tends to be penalized excessively (increased taxation).
#SPJ3