US religionists are in disagreement about proposed cuts to welfare programmes. The disagreement isn't just between various sects but between Catholics. This arises out of how different Catholics view the role of government. Without doubt the same variance of view exists in NZ.
The proponents of government welfare programmes came up with this declaration called The Circle of Protection. It appears that signatories insist that cuts will hurt the poor.
But this is what really struck me:
Defenders of government welfare programs not only cannot conceive of the possibility that government programs actually harm rather than help the people they target; they cannot conceive of the possibility that anyone else could conceive of the possibility. Those of us who sincerely believe that such programs are harmful are baffled at what we perceive to be stubborn resistance to the facts of the matter.
Totally.
This explains why people like me are characterised as selfish and uncaring. Pro welfare types don't actually believe that I believe welfare hurts individuals. In which case I must have another evil agenda. Racism, or eugenics, whatever.
Talking to Leighton Smith the other day, the matter of my paper Maori and Welfare came up. He asked an odd question I thought. Pretty much, do you believe the things you write? Or maybe it was, do you believe the things you write to be true or factual? That was what I took from the question anyway. Which actually made me burst into laughter. Of course I believe them I said. I wouldn't write them if I didn't.
But here's another thing. I don't reflect the other side's disbelief. That is, I do not characterise proponents of government welfare as evil or having secret agendas. I describe them as well-intentioned but misguided. Patronising at best. Dangerous at worst. But nevertheless sincere in their clinging to faith in government efforts to reduce poverty.
Back to the column:
What unemployed and impoverished people really need is not government handouts, but access to, and the capacity and inducement to engage, the market economy—as Pope John Paul II put it, to “enter the circle of exchange.” Government policy should be encouraging companies to hire and potential employees to be hired. Yet, to take but one example of recent counter productivity, economists have shown that extending unemployment benefits beyond a certain length of time correlates with higher unemployment rates. If a safety net becomes too comfortable, people are inclined to remain in it. Welfare program advocates deny this vehemently—everyone wants to work, they say; they just need the chance—but statistical evidence and a realistic understanding of human nature contradict them. It could be that the perfect job is not available; maybe finding work means picking up and moving, or taking a cut in pay, or training to acquire a new skill. People faced with these situations deserve our compassion and assistance. But if we minimize the incentive to do what is necessary to find employment, we do neither the out-of-work individual nor the overall economy any favors.
So, do you think this fellow really believes all that?
You bet. And so do I.
5 comments:
Changing Welfare policies requires "taking something away and replacing it with something esle". Like stopping smoking, don't smoke, do something, go for a run, just do something.
Sustainable suburban environments, the cycle of productivity and trade happening within the suburbs.
Environmentally, self sustaining, eco friendly environment - the suburbs.
Thanks for posting.
Nice to see you reading articles from Acton.org. They are people of faith, who appreciate the market. Both the commercial market, and the market of ideas.
Regs
Brendan
There is a decent argument when confronted with the questioning of your motives to throw the same accusation back. Welfare and socialism is about the politics of control. By maintaining dependency the left are cynically controlling poor people for their own ends rather than helping to achieve positive change.
Agree Phil but I don't throw it back because I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. A concession they do not allow me. One reason I am unsuited to politics.
Welfare policies should go hand in hand with edicts of social responsibility. Sexual morality mores have been virtually washed away. Out of wedlock babies were a shock to a community decades ago.Gambling is strongly promoted by our Government. You can,t smack your kids but you can get caught up in much worse. 1935 was when the Welfare State was born out of harsh times.Harsh times present a different modern face these days but they,re still here.A widow with kids has an socially acceptable plight, a single parent a stigmatised image.You get what you sow when society takes away morality rules, promotes gambling,offers lifestyle choices where if anything goes wrong, the State picks up the tab. Not school sex education needed but a behaviour framework or morality that frowns on casual such things.Too much free choice in young hands and look at the results.
Post a Comment