Helping The Needy
Some people may believe that helping those who are in need is something great that should be done more often. I completely agree with that way of thinking, but let me place you in the shoes of a policy maker. What would be the difficulties the policy maker would face into designing a program that would benefit people in unfortunate circumstances?
Charles Murray an American libertarian political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit said that it was impossible to devise a social transfer program that would not cause net harm.
The policy maker decides to begin the program, and says that those who live in a house with very bad conditions, and have less than 1,000 dollars will be the ones helped. The help will consist of a brand new house, car, and 10,000 dollars. What would happen if this program began? Well, people who have a house with bad conditions and 2,000 dollars would want to get rid of the extra thousand, so they could qualify for the help. Maybe they have the 1,000 dollars, and a house that isn’t that bad, but decide to destroy it so they could qualify. This would cause more and more people wanting to put themselves in the bad conditions, so they could get all the benefits.
Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help them. What I’m saying is that it would be almost impossible for a policy maker to design a program into helping the poor. That’s why I believe that the best way to help is by being a collaborator yourself into helping those around you, but, if you have a better idea then share it with us.
Anti-poverty programs are as the name says it programs to fight against poverty. Yet, the outcomes show it really didn’t help. Here are the following.
By 1994, spending on the welfare had quadrupled since 1967; still, the poverty rate was the same. Poor people who do not receive any government welfare are 2 ½ times more likely to get out of poverty than those who do. Critics say that private charity is inadequate, being that before the welfare state society was much poorer. Well, it may be, but at least 2/3 of the money that is given to the government welfare budgets is eaten up by the bureaucracy. This means that it would take three dollars to give one dollar to the poor. In other words, if a bureaucrat wants to give a poor lady one dollar, the government would have to give him three dollars. According to James Payne, burdens and costs associated with levying and collecting taxes amount to 65 cents to every dollar taxed. Wait, there’s more, the total cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor is five dollars. June O’ Neil who is formerly of the Congressional Budget Office said that welfare dependencies affected children by reducing their IQ up to 20%, impairing young men’s earning ability, behavioral and emotional problems, and by doubling the probability children will get involved in criminal activity. Also, whenever the government placed a huge help for the poor, there were no great results, just as in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, on Medicare and Medicade, on the Job Corps established in 1965, and much more.
To this I conclude that there might be no manly way to solve this problem, but that we need a greater and higher way.