Want to Reduce Crime? End Welfare!

Published on December 8, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

There are endless speculations among our political elite as to how to end crime in the US. stricter enforcement hasn't worked, "zero tolerance" and "three strikes" have only worked against those whose cases aren't sensational enough to attract good lawyers. And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.

But the United States could go a long way towards reducing crime in this country as we know it by the simple act of ending welfare and other private "entitlements". While liberals claim it would increase crime (and it might, over the VERY short term), the fact is that over the long term eliminating welfare would, in all probability, REDUCE crime and create a stronger, more productive society.

To understand this, you must first understand where most crime occurs. And that is in the inner cities, which are fast becoming war zones. Put simply, property crimes are being carried out on those who have the least property to offer, and violence is being carried out on those who live in these public subsidized housing projects. In many cases, law enforcement is nonexistent as the police refuse to go there. Add to that the fact that, with the majority of these individuals on public assistance, thugs KNOW when they have money. It comes at the same time, every month.

In addition, entitlements have created an idle culture. Sure, you're supposed to WORK for welfare benefits, in theory, but there are many loopholes and the recipients of these entitlements are quite clever at finding these loopholes (like jailhouse lawyers, they will scrutinize these documents, having nothing but time, until they find the loophole that fits their own situation). The old saying "the devil has time for idle hands" could not be proven more true than in the inner cities of places like Detroit, Michigan and New York City.

But probably worst of all is that, in order to be more efficient in the distribution of these entitlements, housing projects have sprung up in these places. These housing projects are schools for crime, where most children have no choice but to join a gang or die, and where many of our career criminals are fostered.

Private charity has always been more compassionate, while being more discriminatory in who can and cannot receive aid. Administrators can more quickly identify fraud and act to arrest the fraud just as quickly. Best of all, private charities (theoretically, at least) rely on money that is VOLUNTARILY given to their cause, rather than money that is wrested out by faceless bureaucrats. And the administrative costs of private charities are FAR lower than those of their government counterparts.

The simple fact is, we don't WANT to reduce crime. We don't WANT to improve the lives of these individuals. For if we do, we will put to an end a multi BILLION dollar industry of government agents who are nothing more than state sanctioned welfare recipients themselves.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Dec 08, 2005

I understand your point, but it wont happen. Like all government programs, once started, they are impossible to kill. This is typical of that. It does not work, and yet the very mention of eliminating it and trying somethign new brings howls from the left about conservatives being baby killers.

cactoblasta

on Dec 09, 2005

I don't see how it will end crime. If the money doesn't come from the government every month, where will it come from?

In the short term there will certainly be a reduce on housing pressure - the old, the sick and the very young mostly won't survive the inevitable artificial famine, thus freeing up apartments. So sure, people will be spending less on accomodation, which will free up some of their funds.

But still the gangs will need to acquire enough money to feed themselves and get enough arms to defend what little they have. There are few enough private institutions willing to help, so presumably they'll support themselves with robbery - the same way they've always supported themselves, only without the middleman.

One statement in particular though bugs me - if what I've said above is even vaguely true (and I'm certain it's not particularly accurate - no country has repealed benefits entirely after they've been announced without revolution, so no one has any idea how it would work) then what about law and order?

If the police are already refusing to step in to maintain law and order, why are they more likely to do so when the gangs are totally desperate and true anarchy rules? The riots would be immense, and probably require the army's involvement, as in New Orleans.

And yes, that's a temporary thing. It seems highly unlikely that the US Army couldn't crush civil unrest in the major cities, regardless of their size. But it would make the Paris riots look like a playground (Americans are far more heavily armed, and therefore one would assume the capacity for destruction is vastly higher). The profit gleaned back from halting bread and circuses would need to be spent at a higher rate on police protection for wealthier areas, rebuilding and danger pay for countless soldiers, many probably not fully trained for urban combat.

I understand there is an expectation in your statement that those who no longer receive government benefits will find productive work somewhere, but where are they going to work? The factories in most cities closed years ago, and even sweatshops are on the decline (on American soil at least). Half the problem, half the reason there are so many on unemployment benefits is that so many are basically unemployable. They lack the skills for white-collar work and the training for what blue-collar work still exists. What else remains except in the black and totally unskilled market - which may not even survive the loss of income from losing their primary customers paychecks)?

Unless that's redressed somehow (and it could in theory cross the entire spectrum from death/work camps to poorhouses to government-created jobs) there's no other avenue for those without unemployment benefits than crime. After all, the wage is acceptable and the risk tolerable (prison is probably mildly comfortable if you're young, tough and ruthless). Why not take the money if no one is going to give it to you?

kingbee

on Dec 09, 2005

where most crime occurs. And that is in the inner cities, which are fast becoming war zones

has there ever been a time when this wasn't true of every city in the world? even in the relatively instant cities of 18th and 19th century america, there was always a hell's kitchen or a skid row. there was nothing even close to welfare then.

in order to be more efficient in the distribution of these entitlements, housing projects have sprung up in these places

look into the history of housing projects in detroit, chicago & nyc and you'll find the only efficiency involved when choosing sites was 'this the easiest way to keep em from moving into our neighboorhoods'

kingbee

on Dec 09, 2005

Private charity has always been more compassionate, while being more discriminatory in who can and cannot receive aid

i can't recall reading anything about services or facilities operated by private charities in europe or america over the past 300 years that would lead me to believe those which might be thought of as havens of compassion weren't an extreme exception to the rule.

Leauki

on Dec 09, 2005

And the administrative costs of private charities are FAR lower than those of their government counterparts.

I have seen this claim often. But do you have any data about this?

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 09, 2005

Leauki,

I will look for data. But simply applying common sense can sort it out for you.

The Salvation Army collects money in a bucket at WalMart (or wherever). The money is used in the local community, by a staff that is part paid, part volunteer, and ALL local. The government collects federal money in taxes, meaning IRS agents are needed to be employed, they have a six figure cabinet level position to administrate the money (along with the complete staff), they have six figure cabinet level positions available at state level in fifty states, and high five figure administrators in virtually every county. Then there are the social workers at the individual level. Add to that the accounting departments needed to process paperwork and issue checks, and it would be foolish to believe that the government is even REMOTELY efficient in the distribution of the money.

Dr Guy

on Dec 09, 2005

If the money doesn't come from the government every month, where will it come from?

I think he addressed that question. Charities (most) are much more efficient and discriminating, so there is a lot less fraud and waste.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 09, 2005

OK, kingbee. So you are taking the position that the crime RATE (as a percentage of the population) right now is no greater than the crime rate of the 18th and 19th centuries? Remember, my topic was about the REDUCTION of crime, not the ELIMINATION of such.

If the crime rate is roughly the same as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, you just chucked every argument for gun control out the window.

kingbee

on Dec 09, 2005

If the crime rate is roughly the same as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, you just chucked every argument for gun control out the window.

actually, i believe i said urban crime is urban crime and has been since cities first came into being. there were no guns in sodom or gomorrah. or thebes. or athens.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 09, 2005

But again, Kingbee, I was talking about REDUCING, not ELIMINATING crime. The fact is, you're right...we'll NEVER eliminate inner city crime. But if we actually expect individuals to WORK for a living, then they'll have less time to COMMIT these crimes (and actually putting them away for the crimes they DO commit wouldn't be a bad idea, either, since the recidivism rate in this country is through the roof).

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 09, 2005

Somehow, this sentence was missed in certain people's reading of the article. Are these sentences invisible to leftists, or what?

And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.

Dr Guy

on Dec 09, 2005

Somehow, this sentence was missed in certain people's reading of the article. Are these sentences invisible to leftists, or what?

And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.

Not in their leftist Utopia. That is why they cant comprehend the sentence.

kingbee

on Dec 10, 2005

But again, Kingbee, I was talking about REDUCING, not ELIMINATING crime. The fact is, you're right...we'll NEVER eliminate inner city crime

i dunno why you think i'm talking about eliminating anything. i was simply questioning what i believe to be a serious flaw in your argument...

the inner cities, which are fast becoming war zones

...by reminding you the cities of the ancient world seem to have been considered war zones by residents who customarily built fortress-like houses to keep the riff-raff out. that family compound tradition is still alive and well in the middle east. even at its high points, rome had neighborhoods where when the centurion was away, the hoodlums would play.

welfare wasn't a factor at all. poverty and greed were.

kingbee

on Dec 10, 2005

Somehow, this sentence was missed in certain people's reading of the article. Are these sentences invisible to leftists, or what?
And, in fact, as long as there are two or more people alive on the earth, there will be crime of some sort or the other.

if that was directed at me, i hope my previous comment will enable you to see you're not alone in wondering about them seemingly invisible concepts.

kingbee

on Dec 10, 2005

Not in their leftist Utopia. That is why they cant comprehend the sentence

alas, i am wounded to the quick! another victim of the dr's rapier wit. *falls to the ground, writhing in agony*

(either that or uncontrollable laffter has de-assed me whilst rollin on the floor )

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!