Self-styled progressive Democrats demand that Congress pass a “human infrastructure” package that would provide funding for “free” college and preschool, alongside other social agenda items.

Jon, a man whose story I know, would have called it a “government package.” Jon, who is middle-aged, had a HUD housing voucher and food stamp benefits, and was on track for disability approval.

None of it helped Jon with his chronic addiction and cyclical homelessness, though. And that was why he stood in my office asking to join our residential long-term recovery program.

Program participants agree to give up all pursuit of government aid and to work toward self-reliance instead. Jon did it. He went on to gain full-time employment as an over-the-road truck driver and, in doing so, independence from the state.

During an interview at a local radio station, Jon said: “Giving up that government package was the hardest decision I had ever made in my life.”

Jon called it a government package. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might call it human infrastructure. It’s a term I’d never heard until late August, when the California Democrat championed the idea from the House floor.

“Not only are we building the physical infrastructure of America, we are building the human infrastructure of America,” Pelosi said in reference to the $3.5 trillion spending bill that is separate from the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill focused on highways, bridges, ports, and the like.

Maybe it was because Pelosi placed the $3.5 trillion social spending package alongside a bill that deals more with trusses, concrete, and rebar that I felt denigrated to something a little less than human.

Fighting poverty on the front lines over the past two decades has taught me to see the unique capacity and inherent dignity in every person. I’ve also learned that handouts, whether private or public, tend to rob people of dignity and self-worth.

Yet, a large chunk of this $3.5 trillion proposal (more than $700 billion) is to provide just that—handouts in the way of “free” college, “free” pre-K, and “free” day care.

It’s shameful to call these expansions of the welfare state “human infrastructure.” The human person is not a structure to be supported or undergirded by the state.

Contrary to the pitch made by Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, President Joe Biden, and its other promoters, if passed into law this massive spending boondoggle will be both wasteful and harmful.

“Free” stuff from the government results in poor stewardship and price increases, and wears away at the true undergirding of America’s greatness—civil society.

First, people don’t tend to care for free stuff. A school administrator called me one day for advice on the issue of poor stewardship. School supplies handed out with free backpacks were strewn about lockers and hallways. She was frustrated by the carelessness of her students.

“It’s natural for us to care more about things we’ve worked for,” I told her.

College is no exception. “Free” college already has proven to be more a failure than success. The first major study of graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients revealed that less than half (41%) graduate, compared with 61% of their non-Pell counterparts.

Second, government handouts drive up costs. “Free” child care sounds good, but there’s a price to pay. In the United Kingdom, that price to pay rose significantly. After the U.K. instituted “free” child care for 30 hours per week in 2017, day care prices shot up by 7%.

It’s no wonder. When the government purchases private sector services, the market responds, hurting non-qualifying families who are forced to pay market price.

Lastly, not only is it impossible for the government to provide real “human infrastructure,” but the attempt to do so is certain to undermine further a primary foundation of America’s greatness, which is civil society.

Interdependency found in natural associations within communities has made America great. The more we depend on the state, the less we lean on one another.

The French historian and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in his early nineteenth-century biography of the United States, Democracy in America: “The more [the government] puts itself in place of associations, the more particular persons, losing the idea of associating with each other, will need it to come to their aid.”

Pelosi clearly believes we need government to come to our aid. But to support her plan for “human infrastructure” is to support the erosion of a life more responsible, affordable, and relational.

Last year, Jon paid me a surprise visit. It was good to see him and to note the contrast from the person who had stepped in my office a few years back.

I asked him, “Of all the components in our program, what made the difference?”

He responded immediately, “My mentor.”

The local businessman who built a relationship with Jon was pivotal to his recovery. It wasn’t Jon’s “government package” that helped him, and it won’t be Pelosi’s “human infrastructure” package that will help us.

Genuine compassion, personal charity, and real relationship is what we need.

 

---

This article was originally published in the Daily Signal, found here. 

 

 

 

---

This article was also published on FEE.org on July 25, 2021.

---

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.2″ _module_preset=”default”]“We must remember for every dollar spent by a SNAP recipient, the economy is stimulated by $1.50.” This was shared more than once in a recent Congressional hearing on the future of the Federal Government’s largest feeding program, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamp benefits). It was one of the arguments to support SNAP’s sustained expansion after the 15% increase in benefits that came with the recent passage of the American Rescue Plan Act and before the American Family Plan that intends to expand SNAP even further for kids and ex-felons. I was the only witness of five at the hearing who testified in opposition. After repeatedly hearing the economic stimulus justification, I texted the Deputy Staff Director for the House Committee on Agriculture, “Has no one heard of The Broken Window fallacy?” 

Frederic Bastiat, a French economist published an 1850 essay titled, “That Which is Seen and That which is Not Seen”, reminding readers that the difference between a good economist and a bad one is that the latter takes into account the effects that are seen, but the good economist considers those effects that are both seen and unseen. To illustrate this, he penned the parable of The Broken Window, in which a shop owner’s window is broken by a careless boy. The bystanders hardly feel sorry for the shop owner, explaining that though he will be out the money for the window, the window repairman is dependent on such accidents for a job. The fixer gains pay, and the shop owner gains a new window. All is well, until Bastiat points out the unseen—that the shop owner’s dollars might have been spent on a pair of new shoes which would have satisfied both the need of the shop owner and employment of that unseen third person, the shoemaker.  

It’s not hard to see how the food stamp program has some effect of economic stimulation. One government report explains that for every billion dollars in SNAP benefits, the GDP grows by 1.54 billion and creates 13,560 jobs. This is what is seen. What is unseen? The jobs created in the particular sectors outlined in the report result in an average annual salary of just under $52,000, leaving the good economist to wonder at the waste of spending a billion dollars to create 13,560 of them. That breaks down to a cost of almost $74,000 per job.  

“But people are fed,” some may contend; and that is correct—about 42 million of them through the program currently. That is what is seen. However, there are yet other unseen misfortunes that stem from this welfare program. A young homeless man, Terry, who entered the long-term work ready program at our homeless mission, spoke candidly with me when I asked him about his previous use of food stamps. “What would you have done if they had not been available to you?” I asked. He paused before chuckling, “I probably would have gotten me a job.” According to one DC-based policy thinktank, Terry is one of more than a million. Specifically, they estimate that work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) would have put 1.3 million people at risk of losing their SNAP benefits. In my state of Missouri, when work requirements were enforced in 2016, more than 85% of ABAWDs like Terry who were dependent on SNAP dropped off the welfare role and their incomes more than doubled through more work and new jobs.  

“Well, at least the government is doing something to help people.” Let’s consider again the unseen. One supporter of our privately funded nonprofit wrote me last month, “I no longer plan on giving to charities… If you need funding, please contact your city government as the federal government has given them more money than they know what to do with.” SNAP or other public programs that disburse resources to help the poor routinely and quietly crowd out the private sector. One study discovered that for every dollar injected into the economy by the government, churches reduce their spending to address the same social need by at least $.50.  Considering the well-established likelihood of local donors becoming volunteers and interacting with those in need, the very relationships crucial to help any person out of poverty are also crowded-out when government charity steps in.  

As the spectators in Bastiat’s parable realized the benefit of the broken window, they joined the window repairman in blessing the child for his carelessness. They shrug at the seemingly inevitable destruction.  

Today, many politicians do the same, unable to address the real causes of poverty. Instead, they applaud food stamps as if the national GDP depends on ever-increasing levels of hunger. 

While government-mandated remedies simply move money around, we know the human creativity of the market creates real growth. Let’s stop settling for broken windows and begin searching for real solutions.

 

 

---

This article was originally published on The American Spectator on June 22, 2021.

---

 

A recent column by Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, excoriates Republicans for using Chipotle’s recent price increase to insist that “Democrats’ socialist stimulus bill caused a labor shortage and now burrito lovers everywhere are footing the bill.” Chipotle announced that the current U.S. labor shortage for low-skilled workers is forcing the company to raise prices by 4 percent. While the reality of the labor shortage is uncontentious, there are sharp divisions over its cause, whether it is truly driving price hikes, and whether it will have net benefits for the working class.

Reich argues that the labor shortage is unrelated to boosted unemployment benefits, which provide a mere $15,000 a year. He argues that the price hikes do not necessarily follow from the wage hikes and that the real winners of these economic conditions are low-wage workers. As someone who provides resources for nonprofits that help people in poverty move up the economic ladder, I am always on the lookout for good news for our clients.

Unfortunately, unwrapping Reich’s analysis shows that there is not much meat in his argument.

First, Reich claims that $15,000 a year would not cause any serious workers to stay out of the labor force. He neglects that this is an additional benefit — not the only benefit. Average weekly unemployment benefits are $387 plus the $300 bonus, for a total annual salary around $36,000. Add weekly average benefits from programs like SNAP ($60), TANF ($110), Medicaid ($120), and numerous others and $40,000-plus of tax-free benefits starts to look like a pretty fair wage for not working.

Reich alludes to unspecified “evidence” that individuals are choosing to stay out of the work force for reasons involving health or child care. Regardless of the reasons people may give, however, the evidence is clear: After the reduction in the bonus from $600 to $300 last July, the unemployment rate immediately dove from 10 percent to 8 percent the following month — the sharpest monthly drop other than the one after the initial reopening.

Reich also contends that the price hikes need not follow from the labor shortage because companies like Chipotle have the option to pare back executive compensation. While appealing, this solution fails a simple math test. With their current plans to employ 117,000 workers and raise their average pay by $2 an hour, Chipotle has to come up with around another $300 million a year. Given that the company’s executive compensation is at a temporary zenith due to stock options tied to explosive growth, there is no way that it could plan to save more than $30 million a year even if it started paying the lowest executive salaries in the industry. So yes, Chipotle’s wage hike does require price hikes.

This leads to the most important question: Even if the labor shortage is artificial, won’t the working class still benefit? The current workers certainly profit somewhat, but not for long if their rising wages are washed away by inflation. Price hikes are not restricted to burritos—prices across the economy are rising at the highest rates in over a decade.

The Federal Reserve contends that current inflation is “transitory.” If that bears out, then the economy will soon cool down. Supply chains will normalize, pandemic savings will be spent, and public benefits will expire in time for a wave of low-skilled workers to flood back into the slowing economy and stop wage growth in its tracks.

Alternatively, if the Fed is wrong and Deutsche Bank’s dire prediction of 1970s-style inflation holds true, then inflation will completely wipe out the gains of low-skilled workers into the foreseeable future. And once the sense of security brought by decades of low inflation disappears, the momentum of the new inflation expectations may carry it much further into the future than the pandemic recovery.

The picture gets even worse for low-wage workers who were enticed out of the labor market by generous benefits. They will have lost a year or more of work in which they may have been able to rise out of an entry-level job. Labor force experience is a significant factor in pay rates, and resume gaps make it tougher to find future work. Unemployed people also experience mental health declines during extended periods of non-work and often drop out of the labor force altogether through disability claims or early retirement. Intentionally turning down one of the 8.2 million available jobs in order to receive a free check is tempting for many low-skilled workers, but it is a deal that won’t pay off for most of them.

Given the mixed effects for those in and out of the workforce it is hard to see any cause for celebration. Not only are burrito lovers footing the bill, but it is for a spending party that we will all regret.

 

 

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021, True Charity Initiative Executive Director James Whitford testified before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Agriculture.  During that hearing, Vice-Chair Alma S. Adams (D-NC) posed the following question:

“Do you believe that private charities and nonprofits could immediately and effectively provide for the 42 million Americans who are currently supported by SNAP?” 

Although James did not have the opportunity to respond during the hearing, he submitted the following addendum to his testimony in order to address this question.

 

---

 

June 4, 2021

To the Chair and Members of the Nutrition, Oversight and Department Operations subcommittee:

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share my testimony at the recent hearing on May 26, The Future of Snap: Moving Past the Pandemic. 

I’m taking the opportunity to respond to vice-chair Adams’ question in writing since her time had expired prior to my response. The question was, “Do you believe that private charities and nonprofits could immediately and effectively provide for the 42 million Americans who are currently supported by SNAP?” 

Thank you for the question vice-chair Adams and I’m sorry our time didn’t allow me to respond while we were together virtually. 

In one regard, the question encourages me – if the number of Americans dependent on SNAP were low enough, might you be favorable toward such an idea?! If that is indeed the case, then it stands to reason you may also be in favor of the program’s privatization if there were enough private nonprofits and churches who could do the job. We should hope!

Even though I have no doubt of the private sector’s capacity to feed the hungry in America, I certainly assert that “immediately” and “effectively” are mutually exclusive. We could do so “immediately and chaotically” but a thoughtful and effective plan would require time.  That said, I am hopeful we can all agree that 1 American or 42 million Americans “supported by SNAP” is not optimal and that our common ground upon which to rally together is to see as few people as possible supported by the government. This reminds me of some words written by one of my favorite Presidents, Democrat Grover Cleveland, when he vetoed the Texas Seed Bill of 1887: 

“A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this [government] power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.”  

 In further justifying his dissent, he pointed to the great strength of American charity, demonstrating his remarkable and beautiful faith in the generosity and neighborliness of American citizens. He also commented on the risk “federal aid” poses to the bonds between people.  

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

There are other great thinkers who saw the danger of people “supported” by government programs. In Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations of American life in Democracy in America, he recorded his amazement of Americans’ tendencies to associate. He foresaw the growth of government and the threat it would pose to those natural, communal relationships, writing: 

“The task of the governing power will therefore perpetually increase, and its very efforts will extend it every day. The more it stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance.”

My intent here is not a history lesson. I simply argue that throughout American history, whether a Democrat President or a French philosopher, leaders have realized that “support” on the Federal Government has a myriad of disruptive effects that adversely impact the natural affiliations within family and community. 

To continue examining private sector capacity, I am not able to estimate the reduction of SNAP enrollees if effective and empowering charity took over. Certainly, without the current and easy path to liquidate and abuse the benefit, not to mention the attrition of able-bodied adults who take advantage of the program unnecessarily, there would be a significant reduction representing a more accurate and true need for food.  

One church in my city partnered with an organization called the Pack Shack who facilitates “funnel parties.” The entire church assembled on a Sunday and instead of a sermon, they packed 40,000 meals during their normal two service times. These meals are dry-stored, nutritious and they even taste good. I know – it’s a drop in the bucket, but it was one church on one Sunday. There are approximately 380,000 churches in the United States. If half of them did the same just twice per year, it would provide a meal to each of those 42 million people every day. 

Even my small mission provides more than 60,000 hot meals each year and nearly that in additional pounds of food for families in need. Our mission is just one of more than 300 in the Citygate Network of missions that prepare and serve more than 50 million meals annually. 

I’m sure you’re grateful for the hard work of these amazing compassionate soldiers fighting for social justice. I also imagine you would love to see people fed and cared for by their neighbors, local churches and communities. If so, then you would naturally hope SNAP to be merely “supplemental” to what’s being provided by those more meaningful sources. Unfortunately, it’s not. An unemployed homeless man yesterday shared a letter with me sent to him from our state’s DSS office regarding his SNAP benefits. It reads, “The amount of benefits you will continue to receive are: $234.00 thru 05/2022.” Certainly, you’d agree this amount is more than “supplemental” for a man who is being fed by the mission where he currently resides.  Certainly, this indicates the number 42 million is woefully inflated compared to real need. 

No less important than my confidence in private charity to meet the true need is the assumption I perceive behind the question you asked. The use of that overwhelming number, 42 million, causes most minds to quickly couple quantity with justification. However, the number of people subscribing to any sort of thing does not necessitate its justification, regardless of the quantity who subscribe. If it were not so, then communism could be justified by the number of communists or mob-rule by the quantity of the mob. If we so readily justify USDA’s SNAP program, we must also toss out, among many other things, those valid and thoughtful arguments put forth by a few of our Founders in the Federalist Papers as they argued for a federal government but assured a newly liberated people that it would never grow beyond its enumerated powers. In number 41, Madison reassures us:

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

And in number 45: 

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

As radical as it may seem to anyone in our culture today, I believe more justified than any government program is the expectation that the Federal Government should restrain itself to that list of “few and defined” powers. It is not so much that I argue for diminishing government as it is that I desire to magnify people. However, the more power the government holds, the less the people are empowered. Empowerment does not come by the simple transfer of wealth, but at the moment a person realizes he or she can create it for himself. So, the more the government grows in its unmerited transfer of wealth to the poor, the less the poor person will find the flourishing life and freedom for which he or she was created. Certainly, none of us should embrace such a perversion of justice. 

I am not asking you to close the SNAP program tomorrow. I only hope you’ll consider that the involvement of the Federal Government in helping people in my community has also brought its share of hurt. At least, I ask you to consider the following: 

• Do not expand the program as our economy regains its footing. 
• Require work from able-bodied adults without dependents.
• Seriously consider how the program could be turned over to the States. 

Lastly, please remember that the excellence of our nation stems in great part from its establishment as a republic. We were never intended to, nor should we be a nation ruled by mob nor by an elite aristocracy, but by the people. In his letter to John Taylor in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote;

“The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism.”

Thank you for working with me to realize a grander America in which we have rightfully returned to the citizenry’s direct and constant control that which it does best; love and care for neighbors in need.  

James Whitford

 

---

 

FURTHER RESOURCES

• Text of James’ full testimony 
• Audio of James’ full testimony

 

 

 

 

---

This article was originally published on CNN Business on February 9, 2021.
The full text can be found here.

---

 

The fight for the $15 minimum wage is heralded as the way for low-income workers to earn a decent living and possibly lift them out of poverty. This claim sounds reasonable, but it is founded on two unspoken assumptions — that the poor currently work and that they will continue to work once higher minimum wages take effect. Unfortunately, these two assumptions are not the reality.

First, it is not low wages that trap people in poverty; it is utter lack of employment. In 2019, when unemployment was at record lows, 70% of poor adults did not work at all. A mere 10% of the American poor held down a full-time job for a year. Given that 83% of people living in poverty have no disabilities, a significant percentage of the non-workers are able-bodied and still do not work.

Click here to read the full article on CNN Business »

 

As per CNN’s policy, the full article is only available on their site. In addition to that content, here is some additional argumentation that was cut from the final published version:

The Congressional Budget Office projects a “mere” 1.4 million jobs will vaporize from a $15 national minimum wage. However, the CBO assumed that employers are more willing keep their low-skill workers than the Seattle results demonstrated. Their estimate is eight times more optimistic than the real-world results observed in Seattle (for those interested, the CBO assumes an “elasticity of demand” of -0.38, Seattle observed one of -3.0). The CBO’s miscalculation will have a significant impact on low-skilled workers during an already difficult time. If the Seattle observations hold true, we could easily see a reduction of 10-15 million entry-level jobs.

Not only will the poor be excised from the labor force, but they will also have to pay more for their necessities.  Employers in labor-intensive industries will have no choice but to raise prices and pass labor costs along to consumers. Comparing common menu items at Dominos, McDonalds, and Taco Bell in Alabama ($7.25 minimum wage) versus California ($14 minimum), we see that prices in California run about 28% higher. These costs accrue disproportionately to people who buy low-end goods, because high-end restaurants and retailers tend to already pay more than $15 an hour to create excellent customer experiences. People who eat at McDonalds and buy groceries from discount stores will see the greatest change in their budget.