Re: the govmnt screws things up

David S. Conner (dconner@zoo.uvm.edu)
Wed, 8 Jan 1997 15:05:00 -0500 (EST)

If anti-poverty programs are so effective, why, after 30-60 years of
state welfare, is poverty and income polarization worse than ever?
As any streetcorner pusher will tell you, the easiest way to get
someone hooked on something is to give it away for free. And
having a totally dependent underclass like we have created is as
far from a sustainable food situation as I can think of
An economist will say that if you subsidize something, you'll
have more of it. Well, we've been subsidizing "wrong" behavior
like unemployment, inactivity, single parenthood, etc. for 30
years. No surprise there is more of it than when we started.
This is not to diminish the good intention of these programs,
only to state that I believe they've made things worse
People have to stop depending on the state to solve our
problems, as it is unable even when it is willing. Worst of all,
government always seem to reward bad behavior and punish good
behavior (I can name many examples if anyone is interested)
I see the welfare state as a copout for people unwilling to
begin charity at home and help their neighbors. And especially,
to change their consumption behavior so that poverty becomes
obsolete
I expect some flames for this, and I welcome
your comments Thanks for lending me the soapbox for a minute
DC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Conner
Center for Rural Studies
207 Morrill Hall, UVM
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-3021
FAX: (802) 656-0776
dconner@zoo.uvm.edu

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Frederick R. Magdoff wrote:

>
> Some of the postings on sanet keep repeating that the government
> just screws things up.Given the stories in the press and the preachings
> of many politicians it is not too surprising to many find people
> (including those on sanet-mg) who believe that whenever the government
> does something they screw it up. This happens not to be true, although
> there are certainly plenty of things that governments do poorly (as there
> are for private companies and charities). But the atmosphere created by
> this sentiment is being used to justify a dismantling of social programs.
> The current attempts to reduce and do away with social programs
> in the US should be of interest to those concerned with sustainable
> agriculture. If the main purpose of a humane and sustainable food system
> is not to provide a good variety of nutritious food in adequate amounts
> to all people, then what exactly is it?
>
> Three examples of succesful programs are given below
> 1.) The US programs to alleviate hunger were initiated because
> the private sector was not particular interested in feeding the hungry
> and these programs actually worked reasonably well to reduce poverty and
> hunger.
> 2.) The US social security program, including aid to disabled and
> elderly, was started precisely because the private sector did not provide
> for these people and a very high percent were stuck in poverty. It has
> been very successful and efficient in performing what it was set up to
> do. (By the way, the stories about the supposed crises in the SS system
> are unbelievable overkill in comparison to the relatively trivial nature
> of the problem - for those interested in this, there is an interesting
> article in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine).
> 3) The Canadian national health care system -with all its
> problems- is a model of efficiency and equitable distribution of
> resources - compared to the US "system" where approximately 1/3 of the
> money is used for administration and profits and where many people are
> not even covered by insurance and do not have access to adequate care.
>
> The military program probably takes the cake for fraud and waste.
> Somehow I haven't seen many advocates for dismantling social programs
> because they are supposedly inefficient also calling for the dismantling
> of the military!
>
>
> FRED MAGDOFF
>