Estimated Reading Time: 8 hours (244 pages, ~2 minutes/page)
Why I choose to read -
- I enjoy learning and writing about public assistance programs
- I feel America’s public assistance programs can be improved, but I am unsure how
Background -
- Author: Marvin Olasky
- First Edition: 1992
- Cultural Context: Not particularly important as book deals with wide range of historical years
Author Details -
- Born 6/12/50 in Boston, Massachusetts
- Engaged in journalism, editorship, speech writing
- Wikipedia Biography
- World Magazine
- Video series detailing Olasky’s life and thought progression. I did not view these videos, however they appear to be very detailed.
Reflections -
What I appreciated:
- Olasky attempted to remain unbiased while detailing what he believes
- Author makes a strong case of the need to alleviate more than just physical suffering to break destructive cycles
- Very detailed historical foundation of how government came in position of providing the majority of social services
Shortcomings:
- Vague and limited on proposed solutions. Focuses on here is where we are and here are examples of what has worked before. This allows Olasky to have less bias, but results in a lack of specific suggestions for change.
- Published in 1992, thus 20+ additional years of poverty alleviation efforts with limited results have elapsed. It would be ideal if an updated version was released.
Key Messages -
- Culture constructs systems of charity in the image of the god(s) they worship
- America:
- Money – We throw money at problems
- Independence – We do not want to become personally involved. We would rather give money than become personally involved.
- Comfort – We largely believe no one should suffer, regardless of the circumstances leading to their suffering.
- Feed and forget model
- Current public assistance and charities are designed more for givers than receivers. They are designed to make people feel as if they are doing something and no longer responsible or inconvenienced by the needs of the poor.
- Nothing is more demoralizing to the struggling poor than successes of the indolent or vicious
- Indolent: wanting to avoid activity or exertion; lazy
- Author asks: “If social universalists believe money will create goodness, then why does the wealthiest nation in the world suffer from high levels of crime, despair, and depression?”
- (My thought) Increased wealth only makes us more of who we are
- Author greatly supports affiliation/bonding through personal relationships, work tests, and is vehemently against indiscriminate giving.
- Bad charities drive out good charities
- Bad charities: Defined as those who give aid indiscriminately to relieve solely physical needs
- Good charities: Defined as those engaging in:
- discriminate giving to the worthy poor
- alleviation of psychological, emotional, social, and physical needs
- modifying the underlying behavior of why individuals are currently in poverty
- Discriminate giving to the worthy and unworthy poor
- Author supports there are those in poverty who are worthy of assistance and those who are unworthy. Olasky goes on to describe how discriminate giving is needed in such situations. Unfortunately large scale public assistance efforts are unable to engage in discriminate giving. Rather it must use impersonal mathematical formulas and flowcharts. (Food Assistance, Unemployment Insurance)
- Charities found some individuals needed to suffer in order to be willing to change
- Similar to a person needing to hit “rock bottom” before change can occur
- Difficult and unpopular belief in America. We are often too impatient with relieving suffering, likely due to idolizing comfort
- Suffering aside, cited charities supported not allowing anyone to starve regardless of the cause
- Litmus test: Do we care for the hearts, minds, and souls of those who are suffering or just their bodies (physical)?
- Welfare often creates an appetite which is more harmful than the pain it is intended to relieve
- AICP (Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor) stressed all relief should be temporary
- AICP found chronic, unexpiring relief bred huge problems in both the recipients of aid and in the resulting compassion fatigue of workers who felt disheartened, exhausted, and ineffective.
- Read When Helping Hurts for more on compassion fatigue
- By concentrating on the millions (federal public assistance programs), we lose compassion for individuals (local assistance)
- S. Humphreys Gurteen with Buffalo COS (charitable organization society) implemented work test and used loans (rather than free handouts) with impressive results
- Work tests allowed dispensing of aid while retaining dignity
- One of the key psychological and social factors to poverty is the need to restore a person’s dignity. Work tests enabled those receiving aid to begin the restorative process.
- Philanthropy has become as cold as the payment of taxes - mostly because it is the payment of taxes
- Federal Emergency Relief Administration on direct relief (1934):
- “Direct relief has little to commend it. While at the present time it may happen to be the cheapest way of meeting the problem, in the end . . . it probably will prove the most expensive”
- Direct relief being meeting only individual’s immediate physical needs rather than going further to meet emotional, psychological, knowledge, and skill needs/gaps
- (My thought) It is humorous to read public assistance proponents demand federal leadership to solve poverty and enact wealth distribution. They are equating “leadership of federal government” with progressive taxes and redistribution of resources.
- As I place a high value on freedom (My Voting Issues), I would error on leaving the level of public assistance up to the people. If they do not want to give indiscriminately, then the people have spoken.
- If the federal government was a charity, how much (if any) would you choose to donate?
- There is no right or wrong answer. Your answer simply reflects how effective you believe the federal government is at alleviating poverty/hardship.
- I disagree with author’s suggestion of using tax deductions and credits to lower economic barrier to funding private charities.
- Again, leave it up to the people, if they do not want to give indiscriminately, then the people have spoken. Subsidizing certain organizations only distorts people’s true preferences.
- Many charities found people needed to be able to freely come and leave poor houses (personal choice)
- Individual choices are the means to end poverty
- Difficult, if not impossible, to help those who do not want to be helped
- Again, see When Helping Hurts
- Historically, most aid given was actual materials, not money
- Actual materials, rather than money, restrict recipients choice of how to utilize aid (loss of freedom)
- Author believes aid should come at an expense of freedom
- Could argue a black market would emerge, but efficiency is lost by selling/bartering actual materials (food stamps, ect.)
- In addition, a well organized, local charity participating in discriminate giving would likely be informed of aid abuses and no longer provide aid to such individuals. Unfortunately large government charities are slow/unable to discriminate in such a way.
- Charles Brace – “the best politics and the most complete form of government are nothing if the individual morality be not there
- Brace found a combination of personal, theological, and economic incentives moved families to care for impoverished children
- Josiah Quincy (1821 chairman of Massachusetts legislative committee) on pauper laws concluded:
- “There must always exist, so many circumstances of age, sex, previous habits, muscular, or mental strength, to be taken into the account, that society is absolutely incapable to fix any standard, or to prescribe any [universal] rule by which the claim of right to the benefit (public assistance) of the public provision shall absolutely be determined.”
- Paraphrased: Universal, mathematical formulas would be unable to determine level of need or qualifications for aid
To who would I recommend reading?
- Anyone frustrated with current poverty alleviation efforts
- Anyone currently affiliated or considering participating in any form of poverty alleviation effort (public or private systems)
To who would I not recommend reading?- If you have no interest in public assistance programs
The Tragedy of American Compassion succeeds in detailing a history of poverty alleviation efforts. While lacking in proposed solutions, it shines in providing hope and encouragement efforts can be improved.
For me, overcoming poverty in America and the world seems overwhelming. Olasky stated, "by concentrating on the millions, we lose compassion for individuals." I believe it is important to start small, one person/family at a time.
How do you eliminate poverty in one's lifetime? I start today and remove the poverty label from just 1 person this year (lets assume you were this person). Next, you and me in the second year remove the poverty label from 1 person each (2 total). In the third year, the 4 of us snowball our efforts and each remove 1 person from poverty in year 3 (8 total out of poverty label). Even though after 34 years, I personally would have only removed the poverty label from 34 individuals, everyone's efforts combined would purge the entire world of poverty (8.5 billion total persons). Astounding.
Next Post Topic: Fantasy Football 2014: Draft Prep
