The Deserving and Un-Deserving Poor - Progressive or Conservative - what do entitlements mean to you ?

The Deserving and the Un-Deserving Poor Why “entitlements” and welfare are difficult topics even for liberals especially in the United States Most of us have read Dickens or at least seen BBC costume drama or the wonderful musical Oliver. Dickens is such a great novelist that what he describes has become known as Dickensian England. What he is describing revolves around the horrible poor laws in Victorian times. Buried in those laws are assumption traps of which even liberals must be careful and into which Republican dogma beckons you. The poorhouse in which Oliver found himself is the result of the 1834 Poor Law Reform Act which tried to separate the deserving poor from the undeserving poor. It had at its core a belief that the poor reveled in being poor and obtaining relief (welfare in our terms). The Victorians, that is the rich Victorians who ran the country at least, decided that unless being poor was made so horrible people would not try to better themselves. Fast forward to 2012 Mitt Romney was caught on tape saying that half the population of America did not want to work and would prefer handouts. with thinly disguised racism Reagan had the same thought when he coined or co-opted the phrase “welfare queens Let’s not pretend that we don’t all feel something of the same sentiment. Passing an able-bodied young person begging on the street with their dog in toe, it is hard to wonder what they are doing to help themselves. Everyone has stories, sometime hearsay, of people on disability apparently enjoying the freedom from work. Although it is a small piece of the picture, there is enough welfare fraud to make one uneasy. Anyone who has lived in a European Democratic Socialist Country knows that there is a small group of people who game the system and have become satisfied with a low standard of living without having to work The social science rationalization of the system abuse is the label “Moral Hazard”. The idea is that, if you don’t let people suffer the consequences of their bad actions they will never correct them. By applying this logic to welfare payments there is specific inference that receivers of welfare have created their need for welfare through their own behaviors. I think we liberals do a disservice by pretending that there is no such thing as moral hazard and that there is no abuse of the system. Of course, there is abuse but here is the question you must ask yourself. Do you believe that most, or even a large minority, would prefer to be poor than to work? In other words, do you think people are poor by choice and don’t want to work hard to escape it? When teaching and asking similar questions I always say – before you assume people are one thing or another, remember that you are person – what you would do It is a crucial question. If you say yes then you will support cutting benefits, imposing harsh means testing and erring towards cruelty when deciding the details of policy . If you say No, then you will support higher benefits and a kinder view of the unfortunate. Will that mean that you risk being occasionally ripped off by the unscrupulous – yes but you will be helping more people Ultimately, I believe that the most important question for us to ask ourselves is do we believe that the poor are deserving of our help. What a horrible world if the answer is no . But here is the rub NO is the answer that dominates US social policy. Changing that policy is what the banner of democratic socialism is about. So do you believe that the poor are poor by choice and don't want to work hard ti escape it