So, recognizing that true needs do exist in America, and that the federal government is typically a poor manager of money, what is the answer to the welfare situation? Here are a few principles to consider – each principle is explained in greater detail in our book (at www.just2simpleguys.com).

            PRINCIPLE #1: Typically, less government is best.

            PRINCIPLE #2: Healthy pride rejects dependence

            PRINCIPLE #3: Something for nothing is, in general, a bad idea

            PRINCIPLE #4: If anything is done, keep it short-term

I think all of these principles are undergirded by one important truth: The goal in America is not to provide welfare; the goal is to have a society well enough off to not need welfare. With that truth as a basis, here is a summary of what a different Great Society could look like.

In this new version, I see a system in which governmental involvement is kept to a severe minimum. Government gets out of the people’s way and out of our pockets. Society trusts that generous individuals will help the needy around them from the pockets of their own goodness, not out of tax-laden coercion. In this new society, another all-important principle is lived out: Government does not exist to fill in the gaps where individuals seem to fail—it exists to carry out functions that cannot be fully handled by individuals. 

Meeting the needs of the needy can be handled by individuals and private organizations. It may take some time to get to where we want to be, but as the government backs out of the giving business, people with needs will have to get help more and more from private institutions such as churches, relief organizations, and civic groups. To be ready to meet these needs, many of these groups will have to take a serious look at the role they play in our society and a great deal of restructuring and redefining of purpose will need to occur in many places. Hopefully, two hand-in-hand things will happen:

¨      Organizations will begin to recognize more and more the need for their help in providing for the needs around us.

¨      These organizations will be better funded for this purpose because individuals will have more to give as the burden from governmental taxes to inefficiently fund welfare will be greatly lessened. This is the Big Picture solution in a nutshell.

This plan has to start with concerned individuals like those of you reading this. I encourage every American to think carefully before simply voting for any tax increase or government referendum that is going to help the needy. I think too many simply vote ‘Yes’ to any initiative on a ballot that involves a program that will help somebody out, without considering how efficiently the money for that program may be spent or who exactly will receive the help. Ask yourself this question often: Who could more effectively spend this money to help the needy—me or the government? I’m convinced that if more of us voted ‘No’ to tax increases and let some government-run programs go by the wayside, the help for the needy would increase, not decrease.

If governmental assistance is needed for a time, it should be done at the local or state level where it can be carefully monitored. In this new system, any help given should, at some early point in the process, require something in return (a job, community service, etc.). Finally, the help needs to have a stopping point, requiring those with needs to eventually walk on their own (exempting, of course, the disabled who truly cannot work).

As the tax burden for “entitlements” is lessened, the economy will grow and more jobs will be created—jobs that, in many instances, will be worked by former welfare recipients. This is another form of “trickle down economics” at its best, and I believe it will work because it oozes with common sense.

My sincere hope is that America will try this new great society on for size—the old one of the 60’s has simply not lived up to its promises.

A big question to ask in regard to helping the needy in this country is this: In a moral, compassionate country like America, is it a good thing that our government takes care of those who have needs? In my simple-thinking mind, the answer is this: Yes and No—but mostly No.

One of the bottom lines (can there be more than one?) in regard to welfare care is this: In a country as good and compassionate as America, if the government gets out of the way of the people, the needy, for the most part, will be provided for. Couple that bottom line with this obvious, but often overlooked fact: When government solves a problem, they are using your money to do it!

No one argues that we have real needs all around us. The arguments erupt when people offer solutions for meeting these needs. When politicians stand up and say they want to spend money to help alleviate suffering, it sounds like a great idea—very compassionate and caring. But there is one huge problem with this idea—the government, in general, does a terrible job with money management. Throw in the idea that it’s your money (and mine) that they are spending so inefficiently and the whole idea takes on a very sour taste.

Consider these stats in regard to government money management:

¨      In the 2003 Financial Report to the United States Government, issued by the Department of the Treasury, there is a section that notes that “unreconciled transactions” totaled $24.5 billion. Unreconciled transactions are funds that can’t be accounted for. In other words, the government knows that $24.5 billion was spent somewhere in 2003, but auditors cannot account for it—they don’t know who spent it or where it was spent.

¨      In a 2003 Department of Agriculture audit report, it was noted that government-issued credit cards that were supposed to be used by employees to purchase job-related products were actually used by employees to purchase millions of dollars in personal items. Among the items on the list were Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, and “exotic attire.”

¨      In 2002, the Department of Education issued $55,000 in student loans to three students attending an obscure college in London. It was discovered later that the three students, and the college, were all fictitious, created by congressional investigators to test the department’s verification process (which hopefully failed the test).

¨      The misuse of FEMA funds in 2005 following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is already legendary. For example, one individual collected 18 emergency payments of $2,000 each by giving the same name with 18 different Social Security numbers and 12 fake addresses. According to a GAO report, almost half of those who received a $2,000 debit card got paid a second time. It was also discovered that much of the money was spent on such things as casinos and massage parlors. A great deal of money went to people who registered for assistance for both Katrina and Rita.

¨      Finally, in a welfare-related field, Medicare regularly pays enormously higher prices for medical supplies than other medical organizations. For example, in 2002, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services testified before a Senate subcommittee that Medicare had paid $8.68 per liter of saline solution while the VA health care program had paid only $1.02 for the same product. The study revealed that it was typical for Medicare to pay excessive prices for a great many medical supplies.

These are just a few of the thousands of examples that could be cited that reveal the inefficiency of the massive machine called the United States government. Let me pause here and say again that I love America and believe we have the best governmental system, the best representative democracy, and one of the best economies in the world. However, our government works best when it remains small and focuses on those few things it does best and leaves the rest of life’s solutions in the hands of the American people. I can’t say strongly enough how important it is to the success of our great country for our government to not get too big—to remain a limited representative government. The controversial senator Barry Goldwater understood this concept when he said, “The government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.” Big government is characterized by far too much bureaucracy, excessive red tape, unnecessary regulations, and inefficiency.

On the surface, the government throwing money in the ring to take care of the needs of our people may sound like a helpful, empathetic idea. The problem is that so often, they are actually just throwing the money out there and hoping it lands in the right place. As we saw with Hurricane Katrina, the target is too often missed by miles. In their defense, we can’t really expect a huge bureaucratic mechanism in Washington to be able to keep a close eye on so many millions of dollars distributed across the country. Does that mean they shouldn’t help at all? Maybe, but if we decide that government should assist with helping the needy, the help needs to be limited, short-term, and responsibility and accountability must be demanded of the recipients of the help. True compassion in this arena is best shown by helping people cultivate a sense of responsibility for their own lives.

I’ll map out a possible welfare plan in the next blog. Thanks for reading

Take a drive through any metropolitan area of America and it won’t be long before you see firsthand that poverty and homelessness are not unique to third world countries. In the Midwest community in which I live, “Will Work For Food” signs are standard reading at major intersections.

I was in Seattle on a business trip last year. As I walked the sidewalks of the pier district, surrounded by the quaint shops and beauty of that great city, I was amazed by the number of men and women sleeping on the sidewalks. The scene is duplicated in city after city across this land of opportunity. The truth of the matter is that very few of us really know what it is to experience that difficult situation.

Sure, it’s fairly easy to walk right past a guy holding out a cup with a few coins in it, shake our heads and mutter under our breath that he should get off the street and get a job. It’s not too hard to drive right past that dirty-haired, shaggy-bearded man on the corner holding his sign if we convince ourselves that he is there by choice. In reality, I’m sure a great many of our homeless and poverty-laden citizens are perfectly content to live on the street and beg. In fact, I have heard that some of them make a pretty good living at it. But there are also many Americans who call the street their home, or whose names are on the welfare rolls, who hate it and want desperately to get out of their situation—they just are not sure how.

Consider the single mother whose jerk of a husband woke up one morning and realized his selfish little ego needed to be filled more than the bellies of his family. So he took off with his little honey on the side and left his wife to fend for herself. For years she stayed home to take care of their precious children so he could go out to play at his job and pursue his dreams. Now she is left with mouths to feed and no practical means to earn the money to do it.

Then there is the guy who has worked a job for years, and through no fault of his own, he’s let go in a downsizing. He is suddenly left with no job and little prospect for one in the near future. He hits the want ads and pounds the pavement day after day but can’t find work. Meanwhile, he has a wife and a couple of kids to house and feed and he is running out of money to do it.

I could go on and on with examples like these of real life in action. The recovering drug addict who truly wants to change and make something of his life. The pregnant teenager who made a bad choice on prom night and finds herself carrying a child with no way to support that child. The divorced tradesman whose factory relocates to a town far away and whose desire to stay close to his children keeps him from moving.

Certainly there are ways and means for the unfortunate in each of these situations to pick themselves up, dust off, start over, and get out of their predicament. For some (the single guy) it would be much easier than for others (the single mom with three kids). However, those of us who grew up in good homes and had parents who supported our education and pushed us to get out there and make it in the world need to be careful not to judge this segment of our population too harshly. If we have never been in the shoes of someone who just got the world pulled out from under them, we need to think twice before throwing out simple solutions to problems that are far from simple. The bottom line is that yes, in this great land of promise, anyone in any situation (excepting, of course, the severely handicapped or disabled who truly are incapable of functioning on their own) who pushes him or herself, and who works hard to pursue the opportunities that are available, can pull him or herself out of any tough situation and make it without having to be permanently dependent on someone else’s money. But so often those who find themselves in these types of consuming situations feel trapped, hopeless, and helpless and simply aren’t sure how to even begin to get back on their feet.

Let me say again that I recognize there are many living in poverty around us who choose to remain in that state for any number of reasons—they are lazy, they’re content to bleed the system, they may be great con artists, they choose to make bad choices. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this group. Chances are this class of people will likely never change (I refuse to say absolutely never because I believe no one is ever completely beyond hope). My thoughts in the next few blogs aren’t written so much with them in mind. I’ll be tossing around ideas for coming up with a plan for those who truly need a helping hand—a hand that assists them for a time in getting on their feet then gently cuts the strings and nudges them into independence.

Tomorrow we’ll take a look at why the government is a bad candidate for helping the needy—despite the role Barak Obama would like to assign Washington in this problem.