Fostering Self Reliance

What kinds of choices would people make if we assured them that if they failed at something there would always be an escape hatch or a safety net for them? Would they properly weigh the risks of their decisions? If we told everyone who wanted to start a business, "If it doesn't work out, we'll pay off your debts, put food on your table, and give you a little extra until you get back on your feet again," how many of them would really consider the seriousness of the risk they are taking by quitting their job and trying to make millions with an invention they cooked up in their basement? If we say to every hormonal teenager that if they become pregnant there will always be food on the table, clothes on your back, and a roof over your head--and if you have more kids we'll give you even more benefits--would they choose to carefully weigh the risk of having unprotected sex? Is it wise as a society to make everyone feel so secure that they can take risks that burden all of the non-risk takers? Of course it isn't wise! How can we expect to be free from the bad or ill-advised choices of others with such systems in place?

We see this scenario play out in families everyday. Over-indulgent parents give their children everything they want without teaching them to work for it or value it. Then when their children make mistakes and get into trouble, the parents bail them out. These parents often have children (and grandchildren or even great-grandchildren) living off of them for decades beyond what is reasonable. Many of them go bankrupt trying to "help" their children out of their inevitable messes. And most of these children are ungrateful and feel that they world owes them a living and all of the recreational time they want.

So what is the solution to this problem? For a parent in this situation, the answer is some tough love. Take responsibility for the fact that they have enabled their child by coming up with a plan for a transitional period where they give a limited amount of resources to the child, with an absolute end date after which there will be no more "help." They must also take some time during this period to truly teach their child what they should have already been taught, how to provide and be responsible for yourself and your choices. It would be unfair to toss the child out on the street without teaching them the skills to survive--that is what parents are for--but it is equally unfair to not teach them anything and allow them to mooch off of someone else for their entire existence.

We must do the same thing with those in our society who see the government (and those who provide their property and labor to the government) as a back-up plan in case they make bad decisions. It is a chronic problem in American society, not just for those on government assistance, but in families, in business, in classrooms, everywhere. What those of us who provide the "bail-outs" to these people need to do is recognize our part in it, and then DO something about it. We can reform welfare, unemployment, and other programs to be more beneficial and less detrimental to society.

1. Providing one time services to families who have a sudden and unexpected crisis (like a major medical issue that causes a sudden, but temporary financial strain) regardless of previous income. Programs that help people before they are in foreclosure, or have ruined credit will improve their ability to help themselves out of a crisis situation without becoming a long-term burden.
2. Providing longer-term services with strings attached. If you are going to take assistance provided by the fruits of someone else's labor, you must feel a sense of responsibility to use that assistance wisely. I knew a family once, who took assistance from the government and their church for years, while the husband attended school and during the same time period they had 3 children on state assistance. Once he graduated from college, she told me that because there wasn't a job available in the immediate area at the time, they would continue to take the assistance they had been receiving and wait for an opening, instead of looking outside of the area for work. This is not what government and church welfare services should be used for at all. When on government assistance, it should be a requirement to take financial counseling, and all of their expenditures should be accounted for each month. This will prevent wasteful spending (on things like TVs and video games) as well as teaching them how to budget and make the most out of their income. The need for assistance should be re-evaluated on a regular basis, and should be done in a face to face meeting where the recipient will have to convince their benefactor's of their on-going need, and that they are improving their ability to be on their own.
3. Having children while on government assistance should be strongly discouraged. Giving more benefits to single-parent households over two-parent households should be discouraged. All government assistance programs should encourage self reliance and independence and family structure. Family counseling may be an important factor in some cases, providing parents with the information an skills to teach self reliance and a strong work ethic to their children.
4. Time limits. Generational poverty is a serious problem. Not just for those who are living through it, but for those of us who are paying for it. In a system that rewards unwed teen mothers for having more babies, and then never expects them or their children to learn the skills to take care of themselves is a burden that cannot be sustained over time. If a 15-year-old girl has a baby, her mother is only 31, and her grandmother is only 47, and they all live on welfare their entire lives and each of them has several children, the population growth in that family is astronomical compared to other more typical families. We cannot continue to treat people stuck in generational poverty like second-class citizens. They are intelligent and resourceful people who have never been taught the skills to be responsible for themselves.
5. Tax benefits for families who care for family members who cannot care for themselves. We are one of very few modern societies where mothers routinely refuse to abort their babies when a disability is discovered during pregnancy. We are a society of caring people, with the resources to care for our disabled and elderly loved ones. We should reward such generous and selfless behavior. However, there are many families who feel over-burdened, or cannot otherwise care for needy family members. There are also those who are given up, abandoned, or have not family. In these cases I don't know anyone who would not contribute to such a cause. These types of programs should be locally controlled and funded in order to foster a feeling of responsibility to care for those who are our neighbors. Instead of outsourcing our compassion to the government, we should be taking an active part in caring for those who cannot care for themselves.
6. When someone is just completely unwilling to accept responsibility for themselves, we need to have the courage to simply say, "we have done all that is possible to prepare you for this, you knew it was coming, and so you are now on your own."
7. Your voting rights should be suspended while you are receiving government assistance. we cannot expect those who contribute nothing, and receive the most to be able to make good voting decisions. This in effect gives the recipients of assistance programs the power of the government to take money from those who are self reliant and give it to themselves. If you want to be a voter in this country, it is all up to you, don't commit a felony, and do your best to provide for yourself.

By changing the basic framework of our welfare state, we can limit it, then reduce it, and eventually we should be able to eliminate it. Once eliminated, there will be more people working, producing, and taking responsibility for themselves. We will all enjoy a much lighter tax burden, which will in turn lead us to more prosperity. The biggest hurdle in our way is the government itself. Politicians love to feel needed, that's how they get re-elected. We have to take the power away from those who benefit from using the government as a source of personal income and a continuous safety net for their bad choices.