Minnesota fraud: Reason to rethink government welfare

As for the estimated $8 billion in government (taxpayer) money stolen by crooks in Minnesota, people demand answers to many questions. But the 800-pound elephant/question goes unasked: Why is government in the business of welfare in the first place?

Where in the Constitution does it permit the federal government to extract money from taxpayers for charity?

Years ago, I worked full time one summer as a “loaned executive” for the United Way of Cleveland. My job was to meet with CEOs of companies, tell them the story of the United Way and hopefully arrange for me to make a presentation to the company’s employees, take questions and then ask for donations.

Through this process, the United Way raised and donated money to other nonprofits involved in community activities such as preschooling, counseling “at-risk” youths, after-school academic programs, care for the sick and elderly and youth sports programs, among other local initiatives. There was a rigorous application process before the nonprofit could receive any money. There was regular and rigorous follow-up to make sure the money was spent properly and efficiently based on previously agreed-on criteria. If, after receiving funds, the nonprofit did not meet these goals, it lost its funding.

The reason for the rigorous review and follow-up was simple. Donors are more likely to give if they feel their money is being spent effectively to achieve the promised result. In fact, “How do I know my money will be spent properly?” was my most frequently asked question.

Because so many worked for the United Way as volunteers, as I did, nearly 90% to 95% of each dollar donated reached the intended beneficiaries. Government welfare programs, riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, do not come close to this level of efficiency.

Government welfare represents what economist Milton Friedman called the least efficient, least effective and most wasteful spending: somebody else’s money on somebody else. Through most of our country’s history, charity was people to people – house of worship to people, nonprofit to people – not government to people.

James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, opposed a 1794 bill that would appropriate $15,000 for French refugees. “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents,” Madison said.

In 1831, Madison said: “With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, who traveled to America in the 1830s, marveled at the large number of volunteer “mutual aid societies.” Tocqueville wrote: “Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. … Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate.”

There is a question of whether no-questions-asked public welfare induces dependency and negatively affects the work ethic. A Center for Immigration Studies profile of Somalis in Minnesota found nearly half of working-age Somali adults who have lived in American more than 10 years cannot speak English “very well.”

You cannot watch television without seeing a pitch for money for wounded soldiers, for police officers and firefighters wounded in the line of duty, for a children’s hospital that does not charge patients, for cats and dogs in need of rescue and so on. Imagine the solicitations in a world where government got out of the business of welfare and allowed its citizens, the most generous in the world, to step in and step up.

Private welfare, compared to public welfare, is less likely to create a sense of entitlement, will get a bigger bang for a buck and is less dependency-inducing than no-questions-asked public welfare.