Government Relief; R. Heiple, II

GOVERNMENT RELIEF IF THE PROBLEM of government relief were not so impor tant, if it were not so expensive, if it were not so destruc tive to morality, and if it were not so tragic in its long term consequences, I could remain silent. But, how can one remain silent in the face of such serious social evils? The philosophy behind public relief is that it helps people who "need" help through no fault of their own and permits them to live a dignified and normal life, thereby facilitating their return to independence as soon as possible. This philosophy is completely and utterly false for the reason that it fails to take human nature into consid eration. The cold, hard fact of life is that man works out of necessity, not because he likes to work but because he has to. It is the choice of eating or going hungry-the choice of being warm or cold that makes man work. If the government is going to feed, clothe, provide a home and fire, without the necessity of work, many peo ple won't work. It is that simple.

The Honorable Mr. Heiple, a member of the Illinois State Legisla ture from Washington, Illinois, here reports his minority view to the Com'mittee on Public Aid. 79 80 RAE C. HEIPLE, II The fact that you would not take the present level of government relief in preference to working does not mean that everyone is so inclined. Unfortunately, there are large groups of people who prefer government relief to working-who do not have the same desires, ambi tions, motivations, or standards of creature comfort that you think are essential. Government relief offers every thing they want-so why work? Relief will provide a home with electricity, indoor plumbing, central heat, all necessary medical attention, conventional clothing, conventional food, including meat and milk, and a certain amount of entertainment and amusement. In Chicago I observed families on re lief with two television sets, hi-fi record players,. and ex tension princess telephones. In fact, every home I vis ited had at least one TV and telephone. In a compari son with other states, the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare's "Statistics on Public Assistance Report" of May 4, 1962, discloses that Illinois pays the highest A.D.C. (aid to families with needy children) grants, the highest A.D.C-D. (aid to needy children of unemployed parents) grants, and that Chicago pays the highest general assistance grants in the United States.

The relief grant.is so high in large families that often the payments amount to more than the family could earn by working. There are thousands of A.D.C. cases on the rolls where the mother has forced the father out of the home in order to get the relief payments. There are people living together out of wedlock rather than get married and lose their relief grant. Nor does anyone GOVERNMENT RELIEF 81 doubt that there are countless A.D.C. cases where a girl has deliberately become pregnant in order to obtain a relief check. An A.D.C. check of $150 to $160 per month to a 17-year-old girl is often preferable to a job as a housekeeper at $8 per day. In short, government relief is a social evil. It is harm ful to the recipient, encouraging him to live a life of un productive. indolence. It makes him less self-reliant. It destroys his pride and self-confidence. It removes the necessity for initiative and creative effort. It makes him a lesser personality than he was, and perpetuates his existence in an inferior position. It has caused the birth of thousands of unwanted children. This is the greatest tragedy of all. These children will have two strikes against them to begin with: they will be brought up in an environment oriented to expect something for noth ing; and they are by heredity the product of persons who do not carry their own weight in society.

In all domesticated animals, the attempt is to improve the strain and develop the best traits. In the human ani mal, the government relief program has the result of encouraging down-breeding· and the production of in ferior persons. The average size of family on A.D.C. is 3.3 children, whereas the general average for our society is 2.4 children. It is a strange paradox that a self-support ing, productive family must limit the number of chil dren they could raise, educate, and support in order to have money to pay taxes to provide a relief family a bonus for having another child. The economic effect of relief is to encourage present 82 RAE C. HEIPLE, II consumption, to discourage saving, to hinder capital formation, to slow down the growth rate, and to reduce the living standard. The answer to the relief problem is simple. It is sup plied by the Bible in Thessalonians II, ch. 3: 10 wherein it is advised that "those who do not work shall not eat."

In other words, the ideal solution is to do away with government relief. This does not mean that people would starve. It does mean that the great majority of relief recipients would go to work. For those compara tive few who are physically unable to work, I am con vinced that true charity, the love of man because of the love of God, would meet all needs. The Chinese, the Jews, the Mormons meet these needs now in the face of great competition and on a voluntary basis. If the gov ernment did not pre-empt the field, others would do the same. I never saw a man starve; you never saw a man starve. I have confidence that the rest of the people in this state have the same feeling for their fellow man, and that they would not permit anyone to starve either. Responsibility to oneself and family, coupled with the necessity of working to meet this responsibility, are the ingredients for human progress and the development of the individual personality. Government relief is a proven failure, a social evil, a destroyer of human personality.

The greatest and kindest deed government could per form would be to remove the temptation of something for nothing.