by Lady Liberty
08/10/2003

There is no shortage of problems, both political and societal, in America today. Coincidentally, there's no shortage of solutions. Unfortunately, many of those solutions present a double threat: they wouldn't solve the problem, but they will increase the scope of the biggest problem of all: intrusive government intervention. I'm a firm believer in the idea that, no matter how diverse the problem, there's really only one root solution, and that's the exercise of personal responsibility.

Do you think our legal system is in need of tort reform? We wouldn't need it if the people hurt through their own stupidity would admit their mistakes and move on, making a special notation of the fact that sometimes stupidity extracts a higher price than might otherwise be considered just. How about making public schools a place where children are actually educated? It would happen if parents took the personal responsibility to instill a little of the same in their kids (it would also help a great deal of the NEA was drastically overhauled or disbanded, but that's the topic of an essay unto itself). And those groups that claim to fight solely for the good of those exceedingly few children who are killed in firearms accidents each year (since there are more who drown in family pools, I sometimes wonder why the groups don't fight to make those illegal instead) would find themselves out of excuses if a few irresponsible gun owners would grow into a little - let's say it all together now! - personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility obviously requires that people learn that actions have consequences. We've discussed that on these pages before where I've talked at length about everything from spankings to jail time. But perhaps the ultimate reward for personal responsibility is pride, and the natural punishment - pride's polar opposite - is shame.

In recent years, we've been working hard in our public schools and in many homes to eliminate all forms of punishment. Ironically, as schools wax poetic about self esteem, they've been working just as hard to eliminate pride by suggesting games should have no winners (so that those who don't win won't feel like losers) and that academics shouldn't be singled out for praise (so that those who aren't selected class valedictorian don't feel dumb). But without accomplishment, there's no goal and certainly no pride in reaching the goal. Without shame, there's no incentive to try harder or try again.

Today we talk of welfare reform in a system that's financially out of control. Past administrations have limited the time an individual or a family can remain on welfare, and have tightened up some requirements for remaining on public assistance. All of this is a relatively new problem. Some 40 or 50 years ago, large numbers of people on welfare wasn't the issue that it is today. Why not? Because people were ashamed to need the help. They took it because they had to, but they worked like crazy to pull themselves out of the financial hole they'd found themselves in. There was a perception that only the lazy or the irresponsible needed such aid, and no one wanted to appear lazy or irresponsible!

Given the large numbers of able-bodied Americans receiving welfare checks today, and the irresponsible sex that leads to still more hungry mouths to feed in families that can't afford to feed the mouths they've already got, it's clear that there's little shame attached to getting a government check any more. In fact, there are people who are up in arms that they've actually got to take any responsibility whatsoever for continuing to receive their monthly stipend! Oh, there are a few people out there who use welfare as intended - a hand up rather than a hand out - but in the main, welfare has become more a lifestyle than a temporary circumstance.

There's one ray of hope that at least something somewhere is working the way it should, and that's in the federal food stamp program. Unfortunately, the decreasing numbers of those taking advantage of federal food stamp programs has resulted in a reaction from government officials that's quite surprising given the supposed attitude toward welfare reform. It seems that, rather than decreasing the food stamp budget, officials would rather spend money to increase the number of people on food stamps.

In the state of Wisconsin, which led the nation in many areas of welfare reform a few years ago, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported  that state welfare officials actually spent $10,000 commissioning an ad agency to create a new name for the food stamp program. It seems the officials think the explanation for decreasing numbers of people needing the aid is that the words "food stamps" might have some sort of a stigma, and that people might be ashamed to ask for them. If that's true, then that's actually a good thing!

Oh, it's important to recognize that any one of us might, though any one of a variety of emergency circumstances, find ourselves broke and in need of some temporary help. And whether we get that help from our friends and families, our churches, or our government is immaterial and no cause for shame. But the idea of formal welfare programs is to get people back on their feet, not to carry them. If shame serves as a motivator - and make no mistake, it does - isn't that a good thing? Even better, seeing as how both pride and shame are indicative of personal responsibility, we should be dancing in the streets celebrating an apparent upsurge in that healthy trait!

During the course of the Reagan administration, some in the federal government finally remembered how the welfare system was intended to work and began to institute some reforms. It's taken some years, but according to the government's own statistics (available on the US Department of Agriculture FAQ page ), the food stamp program is now one of those seeing some significant declines in use. For example, in 1990, 20.1 million people were on food stamps, and by 1995, that number had increased to 26.6 million. But in the year 2000, only 17.2 million Americans were on the food stamp roles.

Those numbers should be heralded as the best of news. The idea of welfare reform was to decrease those in need of the programs, and the food stamp program is one that could be on its way to true reform. But what do our public officials do when, on the increasingly rare occasion, they're confronted by success? They backtrack. They claim more people than are on the program are in need of it, and they simply don't apply because they're embarrassed to do so. They suggest it's even possible that people don't know the food stamp program exists. They take action like Wisconsin is taking without stopping to consider the possibility that perhaps some people no longer need the help because they're now providing for themselves or because they're getting a little extra assistance from local charities or family members (also something, by the way, that the government claims to encourage).

In a time of severe budget constraints, the food stamp system alone costs taxpayers (as of 2000 and the decreased roles) $1.25 billion a month. Any decreases should be welcomed with open arms. Instead, there's talk of advertising just to be sure everybody knows they could apply for food stamps if they were to feel the need. And, of course, there's Wisconsin's bright idea of a name change. The good news is that the Wisconsin State Department of Health and Family Services has decided not to make a name change after all. The bad news? They're holding off because the US Department of Agriculture plans to change the name of the program nationwide.

There's an old saying that goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And then there's the government corollary to that old saying: "If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is." I suppose it's nice to know that the government still lives up to something, even if it is just a cliché. No shame in that, more's the pity.

Lady Liberty