Does Welfare Corrupt Society and Lead to Personal Irresponsibility?
posted on: Friday, April 11, 2008
By Niki Jagpal
In a recent Yuma Sun op-ed Dr. Tibor R. Machan makes some striking arguments about how the corporate welfare state leads to irresponsibility as evidenced by the behavior of corporations that are bailed out by the federal government. Citing the recent federal response to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Machan argues that corporate irresponsibility parallels personal irresponsibility. He asserts:
“[…] The injustice of the welfare state there is also the fact that it leads to
massive corruption throughout a society and severe misconceptions about what it
really takes to make a reasonably prosperous life for oneself, both in personal
and business affairs.”
Dr. Machan is correct to highlight the “rip-offs that constitute the welfare state where politicians and bureaucrats extort funds from innocent citizens so as to support unsuccessful business enterprises.” Yet, his comparison of the federal bailout of big business deserves at least two additional qualifications. First, corporations are granted personhood rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, as noted by Joel Bakan and other scholars. Yes, the same Amendment that was intended to grant all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, equal citizenship rights and protections, provides the same guarantees to corporations. Second, Dr. Machan fails to note the inherent contradiction of the federal government’s ideology and practice. Republicans repeatedly call for limited government, contraction of the social safety net and emphasis on personal responsibility. Yet, it is a Republican administration and its officials that have infused billions of taxpayer dollars into the failing banks to avoid a total economic collapse.
Lastly, while Dr. Machan is correct to compare corporations to individuals in light of the 14th Amendment protections given to big business, I disagree with his statements that our welfare system provides an incentive for individuals to abdicate a sense of personal responsibility. Anybody familiar with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 knows that the complete overhaul of our social safety net programs resulted in measures that mandate “personal responsibility” eligibility criteria for welfare benefits. The replacement of AFDC by TANF is probably the most well-known example. Changes made during the 1996 welfare reforms require TANF recipients to demonstrate that they have either worked or actively searched for work to remain eligible for assistance, including those working single-parent headed households, which Dr. Machan would define as, “people who create huge families they are unable to support on their own.”
Dr. Machan’s critique of the government’s bailout of the big business points to two important issues: the personhood rights afforded corporations and the abuse of federal tax dollars to do so. But his comparison of individual welfare programs to the recent federal response is falsely premised and only serves to perpetuate the myth of the ‘welfare queen’ and the lack of any idea of a social contract that obligates government to care for those in need. Dr. Machan asserts that philanthropy and charity should provide those in times of need with assistance but his piece raises more questions than it answers. How can philanthropy or individual charity possibly address the broad needs of those least well-off when our tax dollars are subsidizing bad business practices? The nonprofit sector is not a substitute for the public sector, nor could it be – philanthropy’s contribution to the nonprofit sector is dwarfed by tax revenues. It’s like forcing apples to become oranges on many levels, though it does remind me of the cover of Stephen Levitt’s Freakonomics.
Niki Jagpal is research director at NCRP Labels: Government off-loading, Philanthropy's role in society
In a recent Yuma Sun op-ed Dr. Tibor R. Machan makes some striking arguments about how the corporate welfare state leads to irresponsibility as evidenced by the behavior of corporations that are bailed out by the federal government. Citing the recent federal response to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Machan argues that corporate irresponsibility parallels personal irresponsibility. He asserts:
“[…] The injustice of the welfare state there is also the fact that it leads to
massive corruption throughout a society and severe misconceptions about what it
really takes to make a reasonably prosperous life for oneself, both in personal
and business affairs.”
Dr. Machan is correct to highlight the “rip-offs that constitute the welfare state where politicians and bureaucrats extort funds from innocent citizens so as to support unsuccessful business enterprises.” Yet, his comparison of the federal bailout of big business deserves at least two additional qualifications. First, corporations are granted personhood rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, as noted by Joel Bakan and other scholars. Yes, the same Amendment that was intended to grant all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, equal citizenship rights and protections, provides the same guarantees to corporations. Second, Dr. Machan fails to note the inherent contradiction of the federal government’s ideology and practice. Republicans repeatedly call for limited government, contraction of the social safety net and emphasis on personal responsibility. Yet, it is a Republican administration and its officials that have infused billions of taxpayer dollars into the failing banks to avoid a total economic collapse.
Lastly, while Dr. Machan is correct to compare corporations to individuals in light of the 14th Amendment protections given to big business, I disagree with his statements that our welfare system provides an incentive for individuals to abdicate a sense of personal responsibility. Anybody familiar with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 knows that the complete overhaul of our social safety net programs resulted in measures that mandate “personal responsibility” eligibility criteria for welfare benefits. The replacement of AFDC by TANF is probably the most well-known example. Changes made during the 1996 welfare reforms require TANF recipients to demonstrate that they have either worked or actively searched for work to remain eligible for assistance, including those working single-parent headed households, which Dr. Machan would define as, “people who create huge families they are unable to support on their own.”
Dr. Machan’s critique of the government’s bailout of the big business points to two important issues: the personhood rights afforded corporations and the abuse of federal tax dollars to do so. But his comparison of individual welfare programs to the recent federal response is falsely premised and only serves to perpetuate the myth of the ‘welfare queen’ and the lack of any idea of a social contract that obligates government to care for those in need. Dr. Machan asserts that philanthropy and charity should provide those in times of need with assistance but his piece raises more questions than it answers. How can philanthropy or individual charity possibly address the broad needs of those least well-off when our tax dollars are subsidizing bad business practices? The nonprofit sector is not a substitute for the public sector, nor could it be – philanthropy’s contribution to the nonprofit sector is dwarfed by tax revenues. It’s like forcing apples to become oranges on many levels, though it does remind me of the cover of Stephen Levitt’s Freakonomics.
Niki Jagpal is research director at NCRP
Labels: Government off-loading, Philanthropy's role in society
posted by NCRP at
7:22 AM
2 Comments:
The question is posed: "How can philanthropy or individual charity possibly address the broad needs of those least well-off when our tax dollars are subsidizing bad business practices? The nonprofit sector is not a substitute for the public sector, nor could it be – philanthropy’s contribution to the nonprofit sector is dwarfed by tax revenues...."
Well, for one, such a welfare policy involves out and out extortion from folks who have their own goals for which their resources could be used. They have, as per our Founders, an unalienable right to their lives and works, so expropriating it from them is a form of tyranny. In a free society it must be charity, generosity and philanthropy that serve the needy, those in dire straits. This is not optional. The right to freedom may not be selectively protected--everyone has it and governments role is to secure it and other rights, nothing else. Radical? Yes. Right? Yes, again.
By
Tibor Machan, at 11:00 AM
Section 8 of the Constitution, the Powers of Congress, empowers the Congress to levy taxes:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
While the meaning of the term ‘welfare’ here is debatable, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Nobody is denying the right to freedom for any individual. Your use of the term ‘extortion’ is confusing – are you equating paying taxes with extorting money from citizens? If so, then what is your opinion of a pay as you go system to ensure, for example, old-age income security via social security? Moreover, how can charity and individuals serve the needy when Constitutionally-afforded equal protection ,rights and freedoms cannot be enjoyed by those who are systematically and historically marginalized from equality of achievement (rather than opportunity)? Perhaps a review of some of the structural barriers to equal opportunity is in order. Structural racism – a reality? Yes. Worth addressing? Yes, again.
By
Niki Jagpal, NCRP, at 1:07 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home