itís all a matter of incentive. In the marketplace, if you do something that works, you get rewarded with money, and the consequence is that you do more stuff that works. Conversely, if you do something that doesnít work, you lose money, and you have an incentive to stop doing that thing that loses you money. Simple enough, eh?
With welfare, though, incentive works the other way around. The welfare you receive isnít about your effort, itís about your lack of effort, so your incentive is to do what is rewarded, which is to be dysfunctional. Therefore, you keep doing what gets rewarded. In addition, receiving welfare is often a matter of being in a favored group, like drug addicts, for example. Once again, once you have boarded the welfare gravy train, how much incentive is there to get off of it?
With me so far? This explains why welfare is expanding, rather than contracting, and why it is producing more dysfunctional behavior, rather than less.
Now, we need to care for those who truly canít make it in todayís society, through no fault of their own. The percentage of the population that really canít make it is fairly small, I imagine, and undoubtedly stays pretty constant over time.
No need for eternally expanding programs for this purpose. However, subsidizing those who simply want to avoid the consequences of their actions is plain wrong. We all suffer.