How Do We Stop The Great Food Stamp Binge? A Look At The Mormon Welfare Program

Fox News renewed a fierce debate over how the U.S. Government takes care of its poor and needy citizens when it aired Bret Baier's special report, titled "The Great Food Stamp Binge." You can see the entire documentary below: 

This documentary is very educational. But everyone is focusing on the interview John Roberts did with a willfully unemployed and unmotivated surfer who lives a life of leisure in a very wealthy suburb of San Diego, California called La Jolla. To put La Jolla in perspective, Its the same place where Mitt Romney bought a  house that is worth $12 million.  

This surfer makes people angry for many reasons. He unabashedly admits on television that he chooses not to work despite living in San Diego's richest suburb, La Jolla. He is happy that other people are subsidizing his life style and seems to relish that fact. He is doesn't appear that he really needs the food stamps that he uses. His lifestyle is offensive for two reasons. He's accepting money from people who work hard only to have the government squander it on losers like him and he's taking the money from people that really need the help.

The Fox News documentary was designed to provoke people to debate this issue. We need to have this debate, especially when these entitlement programs are the largest driver of our national debt. This program is also pushes people to wonder if there is different approach that our government could take to help the poor and the needy. 

Actually, the answer just might be found in a Church that has its headquarters in Salt Lake City. Yes, I am talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, other wise known as the "Mormons." 

Ronald Reagan was a big fan of the Mormon's Welfare Program. After he taken a tour of the Church's welfare program, he made the following comment to the press: "What I think is that if more people had this idea back when the Great Depression hit, there wouldn't be any government welfare today, or need for it."  He also told his aides after the tour that, "You know, there is a program that comes very close to being the most ideal way dealing with those who are poor and unfortunate; and that is the Mormon Welfare Program."

The reason why the LDS Church has been a model for how to help the poor and the needy is because it runs their welfare program in the exact opposite way that the U.S. government does. There are no freebies. No hand outs. People are required to work or help as a condition for receiving assistance. Here's how the Mormon Welfare Program works:

The system is supported by the generous “fast offering” donations of 13 million Church members throughout the world. Mormons fast, or skip two meals each month, and give the money they would have spent on the food (and often much more) to their local Bishop. The money they give is called a “fast offering.” The bishop then uses those funds to help members of his congregation, and others, who are in need.

But it is not a handout. The bishop gives the needy individual or family assignments to work for the assistance they receive. The work might include cleaning a church building or using skills to help someone else in need.  Fulfilling these assignments helps those receiving assistance to maintain their dignity and self-respect and provides a way for them to give back.

The Church Welfare program helps both members and non-members alike. The person who requests assistance from the LDS Church works with the local Mormon ecclesiastical leader, known as a Bishop, to make sure that their needs are being met. The ecclesiastical leader also makes sure that the person has some work assignment to do as they are receiving the help that they have requested for.  

The goal of the LDS Welfare program is based on the idea of getting people who need help the immediate help they need, but then weaning them off of it and making them productive in society.  The LDS Welfare system works hard in helping as many people as they can. During the 2012 election, Brian Williams did a report about the Mormon Church. Below is a clip where they reported on the Church's Welfare program: 

Despite the massive size and scope of the welfare program, the LDS Church is very efficient and successful in helping people get back onto their feet quickly as possible: 

According to Rick Foster, who oversees a smaller storehouse in Salt Lake City along with the cannery and dairy at Welfare Square (the original site of all the church’s welfare services), people depend on the food at the storehouse for an average of three to six months. (emphasis added)

The LDS Church's Welfare program is so efficient and cost effective because it operates on the singular goal of helping people become self sufficient and reliant as soon as they can. The Church has a system in place to make sure that nothing is wasted, people get what they need and they get it quickly so that they are back on their feet again. 

In fact, the Mormon Welfare program is so efficient that it is usually the first organization on the scene after a major disaster of some kind. See John Stossel explain this below: 

Additionally, the program is also extremely effective because it has mechanisms and incentives in place to prevent people from free loading which ensure that slackers (like the La Jolla surfer) do not drain the welfare system dry. The Church does not allow for situations where food and money are doled out with no accountability.

Thus, the idea of receiving help but also being able to live a leisurely lifestyle is completely unacceptable in the Mormon program. The LDS Church would simply not tolerate nor appreciate the La Jolla surfer's attitude or thinking. You don't get to play while others are helping you. You do what you can to help yourself or pitch in to help others.  

It is clear that entitlement reform is needed in America. The LDS Church provides some good ideas on how to create a program that works on helping people who really need it in a quick, efficient and cost effective manner. The only only problem is this: Will our government actually put these ideas into practice?

For more information on the LDS welfare program: http://www.providentliving.org/

You can also make a donation to the Church's Charity program here: http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org

The Consequence Of Churches Promoting Entitlement Programs

As the August 2nd deadline to raise the debt ceiling comes closer everyday and as our politicians squabble on entitlement reform, its important to remember that there was a time in America when our government was not involved in running entitlement programs. Charity used to be a private enterprise. However, all of that changed when some religious organizations lobbied for government intervention:

The American experiment sought to wed the idea of freedom and virtue without the need or desire for a strong government to administer the details of life for every citizen. The American idea was an elimination of restraint by the government to be replaced by the constraint of virtue taught by institutions in society other than the government. The home, the church, the school and other voluntary associations were to be the primary relationship of life through which order and honesty were maintained.

The Great Depression, with its widespread economic emergencies, tested this idea and caused many to desire a government-run economy where predictability and security would be normal because most (if not all) personal and business decisions would largely be regulated by a governmental bureaucracy. New Deal legislation brought with it price controls on food, government insurance, monetary subsidies for bad years on the farm or in business, tight regulation on industry, new and expensive regulations for business and high tax rates.

Immediately following Roosevelt's speech in San Francisco, many theological journals and Christian denominations used the exact phrases of the soon-to-be president in their publications. Many discarded traditional interpretations of key Scripture texts to support a new political theology which mirrored Roosevelt's revolutionary New Deal. The close connections were not noticed at first, but after the laws were passed, it clearly was seen that without the church, much of the legislation could not have passed Congress. The president designed the policies, the church applied the pressure and the nation inherited the consequences.

The fact that many pastors and religious institutions encouraged the government to take over their role in providing charity has not come without terrible consequences for religious institutions: 

What is disturbing when reviewing the history of this time is how many Christian ministers defended the actions of government as fulfilling Holy Scripture's mandates to care for the poor, provide for parents in their old age and give to those who ask of you.

With this shift of thinking, the state began to function in roles once reserved for the church—to the detriment of any who would question the legitimacy of the legislation on theological grounds. The same reception awaits those in the modern day who seek to resist any "progressive" social policy in any way for fear that they will be branded as uncaring or un-Christian in their ideas.

Has government power expanded to such a degree that the church now has no voice at all in the public square? Perhaps, but the modern era of public policy reveals just how much the government has gained and how much the church has lost.

Its worth noting that the consequences of churches abandoning their role in providing charity are not limited to religious and private institutions. It has come at a huge cost to the American people. Look at the chart below: 

As you can see from the chart above, the explosive growth of spending on entitlement programs are startling. However, what's even more startling is the future of these entitlement programs:

What private institutions have done is lay a financial burden on the American people that grows larger and larger until it becomes financially unsustainable. As you can see by these graphs above, there is no dispute that entitlement programs are the single largest driver of our nation's deficit.

The reason why the costs of entitlements have sky rocketed is because these progressive and liberal churches weren't content with just getting social security into law in the 1930s. As time marched on into the 60's and 70s, many churches pressed for government intervention in medical care, housing, and education. As a result, our government had spend to spend more of our tax payer money as more entitlement programs were being created.

These churches promoted a culture of dependency on government rather than on religion. Everyone knows that  dependencies develop quickly. If you want to kill a bad entitlement, kill it quickly before expectations calcify. However, thanks to private institutions like churches and private insurance companies in the 1930s, they didn't work hard to kill these entitlement programs in its infancy but labored diligently to ensure that its existence would calcify into a permanent fixture in American government.

Yet, what is so fascinating about entitlement programs is that they are considered mandatory spending programs even though it is really a discretionary program:  

People are often shocked to learn that Social Security and Medicare are not “entitlements” at all.  Congress could pass a law stopping all Social Security and Medicare payments tomorrow, and no citizen would have a legal claim against the government based on how much payroll tax he or she had paid into the so-called “Trust Fund.”  Because Medicaid is financed by general tax revenue, its constitutionality under the general-welfare clause is even more secure, according to current legal reasoning.

Given that America's dependency on these entitlement programs have calcified, the idea of government stepping away from the enterprise of helping others isn't politically feasible or acceptable. As a result, entitlement reform is not only necessary but should be easy to do. However, the reason why they've become the third rail of American politics is that politicians are afraid to make the crucial and necessary reforms to entitlement programs for fear of provoking the wrath of those who rely completely or partially on these programs.   

At some point, we have to realize that these programs are not mandatory and that spending doesn't have to be on autopilot. Politicians and citizens alike will realize that the third rail of American politics was as only as dangerous as we believed it to be. As a result, the biggest reform we will have to make is not with the entitlement programs themselves but in changing the hearts and minds of the American people.

That means we need to educate people about the real history of charity in America. I highly recommend two books that look at what America was like before the government became involved in entitlement programs. Those books are The Charity Organization Movement in the United States; A Study In America Philanthropy and The Tragedy of American Compassion.  

It also means we need to promote a culture of independence not dependence. That means we need to teach self-reliance, independence and accountability at home, in churches and in school. The more people learn that they can make their own success and that if they ever fall on hard times, they rely on individuals and private institutions who will work to ensure that they get back on their feet again. 

We also need to push for a greater role in private institutions in helping people out and reduce, but not eliminate, the government's role in helping people. There was a time when private corporations and religious institutions provided social security, rent assistance and medical assistance and that time needs to come back again.

People don't mind helping the poor, the elderly, the sick and the disadvantaged and they will continue to help people long into the future. The problem is that one institution is not suited or capable of helping people while the other institution is. Governments cannot provide that kind of service at the same quality or cost that private institutions can. 

Governments can still play a role in helping people but its role must be minimal. The government can't take care of everyone which it has promised with the passage of all these entitlement programs. If we can make entitlement reforms, reduce the government's role in helping people while increasing the role of private institutions in helping people and reintroduce the ideas of self reliance and accountability, our national deficit would be reduced, if not, eliminated completely.

NYT: Social Security & Medicare Closer To Insolvency

The New York Times just released an article a few minutes ago about how the current poor economic climate has increased the moment when Social Security and Medicare will go insolvent.

The interesting thing about this article reports quotes from various politicians and bureaucrats who want to keep these kinds of programs running even when the funds are no longer available:

"The shorter deadline for Social Security insolvency does not mean that future retirees would receive nothing after that date.

The trustees noted that even when the Social Security trust fund is exhausted in 2037, tax revenues will presumably continue to come in. But benefits would be limited to the amount paid in that year, and would probably continue at only 75 percent of their promised level — 3 percentage points less than was projected in last year’s report."

What a brilliant idea!? Lets keep funding these programs even when they've gone bankrupt!! Its nice that politicians want to keep these programs from going insolvent and by working in a bipartisan manner to find a solution:

"The Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, said in a statement on Tuesday that the new projections underscored the need for a bipartisan approach to shoring up the two programs, through what he said would be “difficult but achievable changes.”

“That is why even as this president has focused on pulling our nation out of economic recession, he has made clear his commitment to working in a bipartisan way to address the long-term health of Medicare and Social Security” and, he added, “not simply pass on our debts.”

However, it is foolish to think that the leaders in Washington D.C. won't pass on our debts to younger generations in attempt to "save" these welfare programs. The truth is that politicians and bureaucrats will ALWAYS pass on the debt to the next generation. President Ronald Reagan did it in 1983 when he approved a $165 Billion bail out for Social Security. In the eyes of our elected leaders, the only solution to save Social Security is to spend more of the taxpayer's money.

The best and most wise solution to fixing this problem is to let these welfare programs (and others like it) die out when they become bankrupt. These programs should not be revived for the simple reason that welfare programs violate the U.S. Constitution.

President Franklin Pierce, in 1854, explained why such programs are unconstitutional:

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

In 1887, President Grover Cleavland made this statement about the unconstitutionality of government welfare programs:

"I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

It is a shame that we used to have politicians who were faithful to the Constitution and refused to waste the tax payer's money. They understood that is the people, not the government, who are in the best position to help the downtrodden. They knew that it was the local community and private institutions who are the most efficient in providing relief to those who need it.

We need politicians who understand these principles. Where are they?

UPDATE: CNN had an expert come out and talk about how Medicare is the real danger, not social security. Riiiiiiight.

UPDATE #2 (5/14/09): Here's a nice blog explaining why Medicare is a real danger but Social Security is still a problem.