Questioning an Interpretation of the Republican Welfare-Reform Efforts

July-August 1995

By Pamela J Holland

MONROEVILLE, Penna—[In the form of a letter, Ms. Holland offered the following comments on the editor's frontpage editorial in the March-April issue of the Report  (Whose Contract for Welfare Reform?) —Ed.]

One quick, but not insignificant point about your editorial is that you failed to note the biblical truth that "the poor will always be with you." Just as the doctrine of divine election does not excuse us from evangelistic efforts, neither does the teaching about the presence of the poor excuse us from meeting the needs of the poor. I don't think the Republicans are trying to elevate welfare to the level of a symbol merely so they can eliminate it. They do want to change the way welfare is administered.

You have, I think, misunderstood the vision that the new Republican Congress has for America. Contrary to your statement regarding the reality vs. symbolism of welfare, Republicans definitely see the reality of poverty that exists in America; and they are only being honest, some may say obvious, in pointing out that the federalizing of programs for the poor almost 30 years ago has resulted in more poverty, not less, as you agree. What they are saying by wanting to give welfare responsibility back to the states through block grants is that there are individual states that have already shown dramatic success in reforming their welfare programs and they want to give those states their own money so they can have the freedom to tailor the programs to fit the needs of individuals in their state. The key word here is individuals.

As we both believe, God created each person with a unique personality, unique gifts and talents. The federal government seems incapable of imposing anything but a one-size-fits-all solution to poverty, but that "solution" gives incentives to families not to stay together and bases its amount of funding on the number of children rather than on the family unit. I also believe, as you do I'm sure, that the key to real healing in this country is Jesus Christ. But the federal government, hung up as it seems to be on the false concept of "separation of church state," will not soon impart its money to openly Christian efforts. A program like the one mentioned on page six of the same issue (Mary Nelson's Bethel New Life) has more chance of being funded under the Republican proposal than it does under the current system.

Rather than viewing the Republicans' efforts as coldly and blindly cutting off welfare, perhaps we could focus on their desire to give states more latitude with their programs, and that may in turn set off a different domino effect, namely, that states could in turn make block grants to counties, which could consult local leaders and enlist their help in determining the specific needs of their poor and target any needs that may be unique to that area. As people seek to identify the needs of their communities, they will get to know one another, which is, I think, at the heart of the Republican plan for reform. Making welfare more personal will help those who really need help and discourage some who may now be taking advantage of the system. Then, from the ground up we can strengthen families, communities, cities, and ultimately, states and the country.

For the last 30 years, we have appeased our consciences by taking the attitude that it's easier to give money than to look poverty in the face and do something about it. Far from "a desire to get rid of a symbol of failure," the Republicans want us to take action, to see the individuals, to treat them as human beings, not as case numbers. The real question is whether or not there are enough members of Congress with fortitude to vote for such a program.

I do know one thing: only God can accomplish a significant change in the status of the poor in this country, because what we need is a change of heart, not just a change in economics. And in my opinion, we are more likely to fund holistic approaches to poverty relief (which includes meeting spiritual needs) under the block-grant system than under any program organized at the federal level.