Government responsibility to help those in need

¶ … Duty to Help and a Benefit to All

With the recent passage of health care reform in the United States, the debate over whether or not government has a duty to help those in need has been infused with new breath. The response to this question may vary upon how you view the role and purpose of government. The one thing that most of us agree upon is that we live in a democracy. In a democracy, there are certain core values which the government is supposed to protect. In the United States, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to conclude that we are a nation built upon the notion of equality. To the extent that inequality exists, the government of the United States has a duty to assist in bringing forth equality. In addition to the government having a responsibility to act so as to promote equality and not inequity, the government has a societal interest in helping out the needs of the impoverished since helping the needy contributes to the overall well-being and stability of our nation. To do anything other than promote equality, whether it be in terms of wealth or otherwise, would be tantamount to going against one of the core values -- equality - in which we all seem to agree.

With regard to our economy, there is drastic inequity when one examines the disparity of wealth in the United States; accordingly, the government needs to step in to help equalize the inevitable outcome of our market economy. For instance, in terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America (Dornhoff). According to the market failure argument, when a society chooses a market-based economy, then that society should also assume responsibility for those whom the market does not provide adequately or who cannot compete. The data alone reveals that we have a significant amount of people whom cannot compete and whom are excluded from the basic necessities of life let alone the privilege of wealth. As such, in the United States, we have chosen a market-based economy which does indeed generate a lot of wealth, and we have a duty to see that those whom do not fare well under this economy are provided for. Moroever, our government must be the ones to step in because they actually have capacity to bring about systemic change or to implement programs on a national basis. As we have seen in recent months, the private sector is not as efficient as we once believed. It seems, therefore, that our government is the institution which could provide for philanthropic ends as well as possible re-distribution of wealth. By putting our resources and our energy toward ensuring a basic quality of life for all of our citizens, we add to our advances as a society. What good is technology or economic power if our citizens are not enjoying basic human needs?

Additionally, assisting the needy is not merely throwing money away as many non-philanthropically minded individuals would like us to believe. In actuality, through helping the needy, we actually help ourselves and the well-being of our society in a variety of ways. By giving a poor person an opportunity or assistance to avoid homelessness, that person can oftentimes begin the ascent out of poverty and in the long-term, eventually, become a productive, tax-paying consumer, which then actually becomes a contributor to the overall economic welfare of society as opposed to an economic drain. As noted by Andrea B. Schleshinger of the Wall Street Journal, "It is a rare public policy initiative that promotes fairness and social justice and, at the same time, promotes productivity in the economy and in society at large. Investing in disadvantaged young children is such a policy" (Schleshinger). The United States, indeed, has several policy interests to promote by helping the poor.

Another critical policy reason to help the poor is that an investment in helping the needy translates into reduced crime. As noted by Dr. Lawrence Sherman, the director of the Fels Center of Government, the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, and an Albert M. Greenfield Professor of Human Relations, a small investment in humanity and in the needs of the poor will lead to less crime and, therefore, greater public safety. Dr. Sherman summarizes his experience in working with criminology across the globe: "The societies where incarceration rates have gone up have been places where the increase in income-inequality has risen in direct proportion. And the anger of the majority of the population which gets relatively poor in relation to the highest earners does not get expressed at the high earners, but rather at people who break rules and who become the target of anger and demands for more severe punishment." Indeed, we need to find a way to reduce incarceration. No one disagrees with reducing crime and increasing public safety. If we can help the needy in the process, then helping the poor no longer seems like "throwing money away" instead it really is an investment in the well being of our society in general.