Authored by Larry Elder via The Epoch Times,
When it comes to the staggering $8 billion in government funds stolen by criminals in Minnesota, the public is clamoring for answers to a multitude of questions.
Yet, amidst all the inquiries, one crucial question remains unspoken: Why is the government involved in welfare programs in the first place?
Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority to use taxpayers’ money for charitable purposes?
Years ago, I had the opportunity to work as a “loaned executive” for the United Way of Cleveland. My role involved meeting with corporate CEOs, sharing the United Way’s mission, and seeking donations from their employees.
Through this process, the United Way raised funds that were then distributed to various nonprofit organizations engaged in community services such as education, counseling for at-risk youth, healthcare for the elderly, and sports programs for young people. Stringent criteria were set for nonprofits to receive funding, and thorough monitoring ensured that the money was utilized effectively. Nonprofits failing to meet the agreed-upon standards risked losing their funding.
The rationale behind such rigorous oversight was simple. Donors are more inclined to contribute when they believe their donations are making a tangible impact towards the intended goals. In fact, the most common question I encountered was, “How can I ensure that my donation will be used appropriately?”
Unlike government welfare programs plagued by inefficiency, fraud, and abuse, the United Way’s model achieved a remarkably high level of efficiency, with nearly 90 to 95 percent of each donated dollar reaching its intended recipients.
Government welfare epitomizes what economist Milton Friedman termed as the least efficient, least effective, and most wasteful form of spending: using someone else’s money to help someone else. Throughout much of our nation’s history, charity was a personal endeavor—individuals helping other individuals, religious organizations aiding their communities, and nonprofits supporting those in need.
James Madison, hailed as the Father of the Constitution, opposed a 1794 bill allocating $15,000 for French refugees, stating, “I cannot pinpoint any constitutional provision that authorizes Congress to use constituents’ funds for benevolent purposes.” Madison further emphasized in 1831 that the term “general welfare” in the Constitution should be interpreted in conjunction with the enumerated powers, not as a carte blanche for indiscriminate spending.
French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, astounded by the prevalence of voluntary associations in America during his visit in the 1830s, noted the nation’s collective efforts in addressing various societal needs through private initiatives.
A pertinent concern arises regarding the impact of unconditional public welfare on fostering dependency and undermining the work ethic. A study on Somali immigrants in Minnesota revealed that nearly half of those who have resided in the U.S. for over a decade struggle to communicate effectively in English.
Television viewers are inundated with appeals for donations to support wounded soldiers, injured first responders, medical facilities offering free care, animal rescue organizations, and more. Envision a world where the government relinquished its welfare responsibilities, allowing the compassionate citizens of this country, known for their generosity, to take the lead.
Private welfare, as opposed to public welfare, is less likely to breed entitlement, ensures optimal utilization of resources, and averts the pitfalls of dependency associated with unrestricted public assistance.
Loading recommendations…