Essays /

Government Run Welfare Essay

Essay preview

Government-Run welfare

The current use of government-run welfare systems is an ineffective and inefficient way to help solve poverty and unemployment in urban areas. Flawed in almost every way, it requires immediate improvement and attention, and could be improved with privatization of many welfare programs, including prisons, charity and housing. Welfare can be improved in more ways than one, and one of the biggest problems in need of a fix is the government’s attitude toward the programs they run. Welfare may have been created with good intentions, but it has failed to meet its stated goal of reducing poverty. Many critics of the welfare system charge that providing a steady income to the needy encourages idleness, resulting in very little improvement in the employment rate of those receiving benefits from the government. Not only that, but the recipients don’t receive any special attention from the government, or incentives to become employed, resulting in a downward spiral of problems too big for money alone to solve. Private efforts have been much more successful than the federal government's failed attempt at charity. America is the most generous nation on earth. Americans already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients. For example, if you needed something very important for a job interview, a government welfare program can only tell you to wait for your next welfare check, which will probably arrive long after the interview is over. However, a private charity can look into its own funds and get you what you need on the same day. The sheer size of government programs wor...

Read more

Keywords

125 17 1965 1980s 1990s 1996 20/20 70 abc abl abrog accept accord account achiev act activ acton actual ad addit admit advantag agenc aid alik allow almost alon alreadi also altern although alway america american anger annual anoth apart appli appreci approach arbitrari area aren argu arriv ask aspect assist associ attempt attent attitud babi bad base basement beauti becom behavior believ belong benefit best better big biggest billion book boston bound brand bring britain british broken budget build bureaucraci bureaucrat c cannot capabl care carri case cash cato caught caus cent challeng chanc chang charg charit chariti check children circumst citizen claim clear client commerci communic communiti compani compar compass compet competit complain complianc complic condit consequ consist contract contractor contractu contribut control correct cost could counsel court creat creation critic current custom damag day decad decid dedic defend degre dehuman deliv demand depend describ design detail differ differenti difficult difficulti direct discov dollar done donor downward drug due earth effect effici effort either elig els emerg employ encourag energi entir entitl environ erod escal escap especi ethic even everi everyon everyth exampl exchang expect explain fabric fact fail failur fallen father feder fight fill financi fire first fit fix flaw follow follow-up forc form former forward fulfil full fulli fund funiciello general generous genuin get gift give given glenn go goal goe good govern government-run greater grown growth guarante guidelin hallway hand hard harder heighten help high higher hold homeless hous howev human ideal idl ill illiter immedi imperson import impos improv incent includ incom increas inde independ individu ineffect ineffici inelig innov institut intent interest interview investor involv isn job john judgment kind lajo last lead left legaci less life light like list littl live local long long-term longer look louri made maintain mainten make maker manag mani manner market maximum may mean meet mental might minimum model money monitor month moral mother motiv much must nation need needi neglect net never new next nine novel number object oblig offer often one one-on-on oper opportun order organ origin other overal overhead page part penalti peopl perform place plumb point polici policy-mak poor popul posit potenti poverti pregnanc pregnant present previous prison privat probabl problem process produc profit program programm project proper propos provid provis public put qualifi qualiti rape rapid rare rate rather reach readili realiz realli reason receiv recipi reciproc record red reduc regul relat reli rememb renew renov replac report requir resid respons restrict result reward right rise risk robert role rot rule run safeti satisfact sceptic search sector seduc seen self self-worth sens serious serv servic sever sheer shoddi short short-term shortcom show similar simpl simpli sinc sirico sit situat size social societi sold solv someon someth sometim special spend spent spiral staff standard start state steadi step stop stori stossel stove strategi strict stuck subsequ subsid success support surpris system tackl tape target tell term terribl theresa thing thus time today togeth told took torn total toward treat true truli two tyranni unemploy univers unpleas upon urban use usual valu verifi vote wait way welfar went widespread within without woman women work worker world wors worth would year