As a libertarian, I am philosophically opposed to government transfers of wealth. Period. As a concerned citizen, though, I am more comfortable with transfers of wealth that accomplish their aims of increased equality and living standards for the poor than I am with those that don't.
If government welfare accomplished this I would be hard-pressed to oppose it, despite my philosophical background. However, this is not the case. Welfare programs have proven again and again that they are inefficient and rarely accomplish any long term diminution of poverty.
As far as I can tell, there are at least three reasons for this failure. Government agencies do a poor job of getting money to those who need it, create false incentives for the poor and spend more money on the administrative and bureaucratic costs of maintaining a welfare state than on the poor themselves. These failures are all a direct result of bureaucracy and are greatly diminished when private institutions administer welfare.
The first problem is simply getting the money to the people who really need it. Welfare, like every other bureaucratic regime, relies on forms. While caseworkers may try to bend the rules to help out a family in a tight situation, there is only so much rule-bending allowed in a bureaucracy. If the forms and documents don't add up, applicants don't get welfare. End of story. This works the other way, too. Many people who are able to show the proper forms don't really need welfare. A system that hands out money based on a one-fits-all questionnaire can hardly be as efficient as an organization that is able to tailor aid based upon the specific circumstances of recipients.
Government welfare also creates false incentives that are often detrimental to the poor. Any logical person who is qualified for welfare would only give up their qualification if the benefits outweighed the losses. However, the steps out of poverty are not always significant. The first steps may not even begin to compensate for the loss in welfare benefits. This discourages people from taking these first steps. For example, saving increases a person's assets and may disqualify them. Alternatively, receiving a raise may increase a person's salary by less than the amount of benefits they will lose.
Any program that discourages saving and increasing one's salary is clearly working against the best interests of the poor. In all fairness, this problem is not unrecognized by welfare officials. Some states have started a program known as Individual Development Accounts to help welfare recipients save money. Money placed in these accounts is not counted against welfare, but it can only be used for large purchases such as a down payment on a house or starting up a business. These limitations discourage many families from taking advantage of this option. Thus, despite best intentions, welfare recipients remain plagued with false incentives that work to keep them in poverty.
Bureaucracy in and of itself is welfare's third failure. The National Center for Neighborhood Enterprises reports that only 30 cents of each dollar spent on welfare actually goes to the poor. Where does the other 70 percent go? To the bureaucracy. Professional social workers and administrative gophers eat up most of the welfare budget. While these people undoubtedly help the poor, I am willing to bet that needy families would be better off with more money than with a woman who visits their house once a year to make sure they're living up to all the requirements of receiving welfare.
I think that it is important that people in a society take care of one another - that there is some sort of safety net for people to rely on when they come upon tough times. However, I believe that voluntary associations within civil society are the best way to achieve this aim.
Erin Wildermuth is a senior in the School of International Service and a libertarian columnist for The Eagle.
