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 2)

cactoblasta

on Dec 10, 2005

What 'little' they have??? My god, man, these thugs are living the high life, riding around on rims that cost more than many people's cars, wearing sneakers that would cost an honest man a week's pay, having diamonds inlaid in their teeth, and flashing wads of cash big enough to choke a horse.

I wish I was urban poor and in a gang in America! Sounds like the life to me! Apart from the diamonds in teeth thing - it's a little too bling for my tastes. I've spent a lot of money getting near-perfect teeth, and I wouldn't want to stuff that up by grinding them down with shiny rocks.

The reason they're so violent is because the business they are in (the making and selling of crack cocaine, the street level distributiuon of heroin, trafficking in stolen goods, and prostitution is so lucrative they kill each other to keep competition at a minimum.

The aint forming gangs to buy groceries, sweetheart, and the kids who join them arent just looking for a hot meal, they're looking for that glamorous thug life, you know, the type that rap music and hollywood glorify.

That kind of life doesn't appeal too much to me, but I suppose at least with sin you can sleep in on Sunday morning. I can deal with it. The glory sounds good. Where do you sign up?

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.

Yes, I suppose I shouldn't have said 'end' crime. But aren't crime rates in the US dropping anyway? At least the figures I last heard from NY suggested that (that was probably around 2000,2001 or so). Have they reversed again? And if they are dropping, why bother making drastic changes when no one knows what the effect will be?

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

As for the efficiencies of private aid, I see no reason to see it working this time around. It didn't work too well up til the 19th century; the failures of private aid in keeping the peasants quiet after all is why communism got so popular that the Chancellor of Germany introduced social security in the first place.

I guess I don't share your belief that people have changed since then. I'd like to have your faith, but it's just not there. Sorry. Basic difference in ideology.

Perhaps America should drop all its national aid programs. Be a kind of international test case for the libertarian cause. It'll save us all arguing like political scientists over the likelihood of nuclear war.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 10, 2005

cacto,

I realize that you live in a different country, and I hope someday you can come and get a good look at the lives of SOME of these inner city poor (the ones that make life miserable for the honest ones that are working to improve their lot).

You will see a world of fast, tricked out cars...and yes, the "bling!" that gangsta rap glorifies...very little of it legally obtained and most of it obtained on the backs of the aforementioned HONEST poor folks in these inner cities. You will see a financial exploitation of these poor led by the very "leaders" who claim to be working to improve their lot (Al Sharpton is now working as a pitchman for an auto loan title company that lends money at 30% interest PER MONTH, for instance). You will see row upon row of "rent to own" businesses that prey upon the "something for nothing" mentality that pervades many welfare recipients, and row upon row of pawn shops where they can hock their material goods for their latest fix. You will see drug dealers and prostitutes in the streets. What you will see is as close to hell on earth for the honest folks in the inner cities as it gets.

We need to provide a better hope for those that DO want to get out of the ghettos. 60 plus years of entitlements should show us that the way we're doing it now isn't working. While there's a tendency to throw money at the problem, money doesn't fix problems of the soul.

cactoblasta

on Dec 11, 2005

We need to provide a better hope for those that DO want to get out of the ghettos.

But I'm not seeing what that better hope is. If you take away the money given to them through the government, who's going to step in? The Al Sharptons will set themselves up as aid agents, that's for sure, and probably skim a good percentage of the top and then invest the rest into their own private businesses. That's what a lot of so-called private orgs did in Australia when the government let its aboriginal and torres strait section privatise its aid program.

Chances are as well that most of that former tax money freed up by the end of social security will go into health charities (they're generally more popular than the Salvos/St Vincent de Paul/etc). So we'd probably see a cure or treatment for cancer a hell of a lot sooner, but the forgotten people of the inner city won't be remembered any easier. How many people can identify with a tricked-out gangsta? It's a lot easier with that cute kid dying of leukemia. Who would you give your money to?

I don't have a solution for you. What you seek is not something I can support based on my current knowledge and experience, so I can't approach the problem with total focus. But I hope you can find one, because you're right - the systems we use these days just aren't functioning properly in the immense cities that are becoming the norm.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 12, 2005

If you take away the money given to them through the government, who's going to step in?

PRIVATE organizations, cacto. I've said this so often you CAN'T claim to have overlooked it.

The LP platform proposes a dollar for dollar tax CREDIT (NOT deduction, but credit) for contributions to private charities to replace our inefficient welfare system. Private charities are MUCH more efficient in distributing their money.

cactoblasta

on Dec 13, 2005

PRIVATE organizations, cacto. I've said this so often you CAN'T claim to have overlooked it.

But all you're doing is transferring the bureaucracy from government to charity. Sure, at the moment the competition is intense enough in the charity market that efficiency is high. But unless the government privatises its welfare section completely (ie doesn't maintain a list of preferred charity organisations) then that competition is going to disappear pretty quickly. The big charities, the ones currently least efficient, aren't going to get more efficient when they have even more money to burn.

I suppose we're not going to agree on this though so there's no point continuing.

The LP platform proposes a dollar for dollar tax CREDIT (NOT deduction, but credit) for contributions to private charities to replace our inefficient welfare system. Private charities are MUCH more efficient in distributing their money.

I know this is hella lazy, but do you have a link for this policy? I'd be interested to see how they propose preventing people from paying their entire tax debt to a charity, thus earning a credit from the government of equal size. Or do you know off the top of your head what the credit threshold is? If there's no threshold then it's just an excuse not to pay tax, and I don't think I can countenance that - after all, there are a few essential government agencies.

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!