As I look back through my own blogs and the blogs of others, I thought this would be relevant to explain my position on social programs per se.
I'm not against "safety nets" per se. The idea of these is to provide emergency relief for those who need it, to get them through some tough times.
The problem is when these safety nets are administrated by the government. The government puts strings on the funding it provides (which is interesting, as the source of the money is the PEOPLE, not some magic, benificent entity). This is done with the best of intentions, for accountability, but it has been historically used to bully and manipulate people. The allure of a 501(c)3 tax exempt status has been effectively used to silence pastors who use the pulpit to declare their political views, a dangerous precedent in my opinion, expecially in light of current trends (that's a separate blog, though, one I may never submit). The government has also used this in the area of education, as accreditation has been denied certain educational institutions because their curriculum was not secular enough. This has in some instances driven smaller faith based colleges into bankruptcy. It has also been used to bully parents who participate in programs such as WIC and take controversial but legally acceptable positions on things like vaccinations and education into compliance for fear of losing their children.
I have witnessed examples of every one of these types of abuses of power, and have come to the conclusion that, although safety nets should be provided, we need to stop relying on the government to provide them.
The public trough may not be a bad place to be if you have a kind and gentle master. But in the hands of the wrong person, it can be a horrendous disaster.
signing off,
Gideon MacLeish