I remember learning back in school about the basic necessities for human life: food, water, shelter, and clothing. While the latter may at times be a matter of prerogative, the former three are indisputable necessities. When these are not available to us, we become incapable of functioning within societal parameters. When whole areas are afflicted with a shortage of these necessities, society breaks down completely. Man reverts to his more primal nature, securing these necessities for himself and his family without regard to others, fighting for these things if need be. It is with this understanding of the fundamental importance of securing these necessities of life that modern societies have created for themselves a social safety net for those who are having trouble meeting these basic needs. It is an imperfect safety net, to be sure, but the fact that it exists is a testament to the rational empathy of humanity.

In the 2006 Federal Budget, the U.S. has allocated the following amounts to aid in the fight against hunger, poverty, and homelessness: Health & Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Social Security Administration have a combined total of $105 billion dollars, or 11% of all discretionary spending. (This does not include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payouts, which are mandatory spending requirements in the budget.) By comparison, Defense receives $419 billion, or 44% of all discretionary spending. (This is not a complaint regarding defense spending. It is both necessary and important, but badly managed. But that is another discussion.) Energy and Justice each take about 2%, or $20 billion, and Education gets nearly 6% with $56 billion. The point of all these numbers is to show how much we are spending, financially, to help people in trouble obtain the basic needs of life. To me, $105 billion dollars is a lot of money. With that much money at hand, surely we could end hunger and homelessness, and maybe even poverty too. So why haven’t we?

It isn’t for a lack of effort, that’s for sure. There are thousands of private and governmental agencies whose stated mission is to assist those in need. However, despite them all, we have yet to conquer these problems. The poverty rate in this country is around 12%. The hunger rate, defined as “frequently skipping meals or eating too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day, due to a lack of food” affects nearly 10 million people. Each year, some 2 million people experience some degree of homelessness; increasingly these people are displaced families with children. And while poverty may be a tougher problem to handle, certainly hunger and homelessness could be eradicated.

As I see it, the problem is twofold: inefficient or ineffective management of funding, and attitude. With $105 billion dollars to work with, and remember, this is just federal tax dollars and doesn’t include the additional billions pouring in from state and private sources, we should certainly have enough money to address the problem. But when you come down to things, this isn’t about having enough money, and it isn’t about having enough compassion and desire. It’s about our societal ethic that values contribution and productivity and it’s about our attitude towards those who fail to meet these expectations of society. It’s about a bureaucracy that prefers to maintain the status quo for all the wrong reasons, and in the process, robs us of our taxes and deprives the needy of their dignity.

Truth be told, in today’s uncertain economic world, even the richer among us is just a heartbeat away from needing the help of our social services. Another stock market crash, a debilitating injury or illness, an outsourced job…any of these could befall us and send us packing into the street if we are not prepared. And let’s face it; most Americans do not have the cash reserves to weather a lengthy period of strife. Most barely have enough to make it through a few weeks without a steady flow of income. Yet, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, most of us who have never needed to rely on the social safety net view those that do need help as either inferior or just plain useless. In truth, it’s often just a matter of luck. This is not to say that there haven’t been and won’t continue to be people who are just “gaming the system,” but to paint all in need with this same brush is slander of the worst kind.

As I said earlier, part of the problem lies in our attitude towards those who need our help. Anyone who has ever had to deal with a government aid agency has probably experienced a great level of discomfort. If you think the Department of Motor Vehicles is a nightmare, try navigating through food assistance or housing programs or trying to collect unemployment. You can almost feel an underlying attitude of scorn or contempt. This bias displays itself in the attitudes of government workers as they shuffle through file after file, navigating the red tape of micromanagement, or in the wayward glance of the motorist who ignores the panhandler at the intersection. And the mountains of regulation created by politicians, which only serve as a barrier to those who truly need help, further expand this type of contempt. Obscenely enough, many of the programs that would provide assistance are created with this bias already in place, turning the safety net into a spider’s web that lures you in with a little assistance, and then wraps you up in regulations so tight that you suffocate and die. All the while, watching over you with an unfeeling eye, preventing you from escape, or in the real world, keeping you dependant.

When it comes to the efficiency of these programs, we must also ask ourselves if government is really the best administrator. In my humble opinion, it is not. Government’s propensity to over spend, over evaluate, and under perform makes it the least likely candidate for the job. Government excels at collecting funds and assuring an even playing field through legislation. It is a capable collector of goods, but a lousy dispenser of service.

An alternative structure could be something like this: the federal government would be tasked with collecting a tax specifically earmarked for social programs that assist those in need. The feds could not take any money out; they could only put money in. They would also be responsible for crafting general guidelines for allocating these funds. Private organizations would bear the responsibility of developing local or regional assistance programs. These organizations would submit plans and funding requests to a rotating, national citizens committee who would be responsible for ensuring that the funds were being properly disbursed and equitable distributed. This citizen panel would also conduct audits on both the organizations that provide assistance and the people who were receiving the aid.

We must remember that assistance is just that- it is meant to be temporary help while an individual gets back on their feet. Towards those ends, programs must be developed that not only meet the urgent requirements of shelter and food, but also must be geared towards returning a person back to productive society. Provided that recipients are not disabled, there should be ways for them to contribute while they are getting back on their feet and there should be training programs to help them avoid returning to the same status as before. In other words, we offer help to those who demonstrate their willingness to help themselves, so long as they are able to.

I haven’t addressed all of the root causes of poverty or hunger or homelessness, focusing here mainly on the structure of the aid itself. And it would be ridiculous to imagine that simply reforming our safety net could solve all these problems. Larger issues like costs and wages, improved education, employment practices, and healthcare are all contributing factors to these issues. But until we make the necessary adjustments to those aspects of our so
ciety, we will continue to deal with hungry children, homeless grandfathers, and poor families. And there is no reason that those in need should be subjected to the cruelty of government red tape. The least we can do is expect our safety net to be solid, efficient, effective, and to treat our citizens with dignity.