I have a friend who has fallen on hard times. She and her husband came to the U.S. over 30 years ago and eventually became naturalized citizens. They raised two children who were born in the U.S., both of whom are productive citizens. Sadly, the couple had difficulties in their marriage which ended in divorce. Her husband has returned to their home country to work there. She now relies upon the help of her children (who are living in another state) to cover expenses.
Seeking to help as well, I encouraged her to apply to our state Social Services Department for an EBT card (food stamps), as this seemed a practical way to cover at least her basic monthly food costs. With a monthly subsidy of about three hundred dollars, this form of public assistance seemed worth pursuing. Understandably, it comes with periodic reporting requirements. It is intended as a means of helping people get on their feet, so to speak, as they arrange for at least part-time work that will allow them to move forward and thrive. It is a form of grace that one can receive, albeit offered through a state government program supported by our taxes.
Sadly, my friend has cultivated within herself a sense of resentment over not being compensated more through this program than she has been, as if it were intended as payment for a life well-lived. She had indeed raised her children well, and on those terms, the subsidy would seem terribly inadequate. But it is a form of charity intended to help those in need, not payment one is entitled to as compensation for past service to society.
Perhaps we would do well to return our charitable efforts to the administration of self-funded private organizations (religious or otherwise) where they are more easily understood to offer charity and not entitlements to be demanded from our government. Simply framing charity as a grace that one can receive, and from people with whom we interact at a local level, may be preferable to framing it as an entitlement owed to us by a faceless government entity. Emphasis on the latter seems to have led to gross levels of fraud.
There will always be instances of fraud for which oversight should be expected, though self-funded local charities (without government funding) will have a greater incentive to root out fraud than our government programs ever had.
I’m sure we’ll continue to fund both private and public charitable efforts, and with the hope that fewer people will fall through the cracks of society. But given the abuse we’ve seen among publicly funded programs, perhaps it’s time to reconsider our collective focus, returning or shifting as much funding as we can to private and local charitable organizations and their efforts on behalf of the needy.
