Maggie's Farm

I agree with you WC. In addition, I would make a few comments.

Konczal claims that the fact that states and municipalities belies the "conservative"contention that all indigent support was through private charity. I might admit that that form of support is probably not emphasized as much as it might but I view that is largely irrelevant because one of the reasons for the failure of the national safety net is that it is unaccountable, bureaucratic, wasteful, and holds no one to account.

A local system of support would be much better at ensuring that support go to those who NEED it. It was surely much less lavish than the present system which disincentivizes work. Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a local social welfare system but there is nothing in it to allow a national one.

A logical disconnect in his argument is that, as you say, those who support the federal welfare programs are the compassionate ones and those who don't have no heart. Poll after poll shows that those on the left are much less supportive of private charity. Remember the ridiculously minuscule charitable deductions on Al Gore and Joe Biden's tax returns. If the "progressive" left is so interested in supporting the poor, why don't thy support them themselves? Why do those cruel conservatives give more generously to charitable causes - including donating blood which costs nothing but time? One can be forgiven if he suggests that they are more interested in getting someone else to do (most of) it.

Of course, no one should characterize the solutions of the past as perfect. Conservatives tend to view things more in trade offs rather than the choice between the flawed and the ideal. We now have a system where:

1. people get government (taxpayer) money to use for food but can also be used at casinos, porn shops, hotels, and who knows where else.

2. As I alluded earlier, the total benefits are generous enough that it doesn't make sense to try and get an entry level job. The people who pay into the system are having a harder and harder time making their own ends meet that resentment for paying someone else not to work is building which is teaching people they are entitled to the product of some else's labor.

3. As you alluded, the fact that these programs exist dampens enthusiasm for actual charity which erodes civil society in that those who can help care for those who are in dire straights are encouraged to wash their hands of them - "I paid my taxes".

We used to have a system where people who were destitute were encouraged to work so they would not need future support. Nobody was able to gamble their support away since it was largely non monetary. Both systems are imperfect but the incentives of the old system make a lot more sense than those of the present system.

As you state, there is a financial component too. Our debt has ballooned and at some point in the not too distant future the cost of servicing that debt will crowd out other spending. We are already telling our soldiers that there isn't enough money to fund their pensions and their health care. Next, we will be telling retirees that there won't be enough money to pay Social Security promises to them. At what point will we say that we no longer have the money to support those who do not work?

We outlawed slavery after the Civil War. That was a system where a few people lived at the expense of other people's labor, but we now have a segment of our population who live at the expense of taxpayer's labor. Can somebody explain the difference?