Young: Shutdown lesson — don’t depend on D.C.
The recent federal shutdown has reignited discussions about the reliability of government aid programs, particularly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). As political gridlock in Congress led to uncertainty in funding, SNAP recipients found themselves caught in the crossfire of a dysfunctional system. This situation underscores a critical takeaway: the need for communities to rely less on Washington for essential services and to seek more localized solutions for poverty relief. When families face hunger, they should not have to contend with the unpredictability of federal aid; rather, assistance should be readily available and responsive to their needs.
The argument for decentralizing aid programs is compelling. Currently, SNAP is administered by state governments but heavily reliant on federal funding, making it vulnerable to the whims of national politics. Advocates suggest that states should take greater control over their welfare programs, reducing the federal government’s role. This shift could lead to more personalized and adaptable aid, as local programs are often better equipped to address the specific needs of their communities. Moreover, local initiatives foster accountability and engagement, allowing citizens to directly influence the support systems in place. Historical context, as highlighted in David Beito’s book “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State,” reveals that communities have a long-standing tradition of neighbors helping each other, a practice that has diminished with the rise of federal welfare programs.
Furthermore, the article encourages individuals to take action within their communities by supporting local charities, food pantries, and shelters. With Americans contributing $550 billion to charitable causes in the past year, there is a strong foundation of goodwill and generosity that can be harnessed to fill the gaps left by government programs. The message is clear: while federal aid may falter during shutdowns or political disputes, the power to uplift and support those in need lies within our communities. By fostering a culture of mutual aid and local support, we can create a more resilient safety net that is less susceptible to the failures of Washington. Ultimately, the lesson from the latest shutdown is to advocate for a system that empowers local initiatives and encourages personal responsibility in alleviating poverty.
The federal shutdown is over. Here’s one big takeaway: We need to depend less on Washington. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food aid program’s vulnerability shows how government failure puts people at risk.
Shutdowns make the federal government too unreliable to be solely entrusted with helping the poor. When people need help, they should be able to get it. Almost everyone agrees on that, regardless of politics. The question is how to deliver that help.
When Congress cannot agree on a budget, SNAP recipients are an unintended casualty. The solution is to move aid out of Washington and closer to home, so national political spats have no bearing on whether hungry families can afford food.
Government-run relief programs should be funded at the state and local levels to the greatest extent possible. SNAP is administered by state governments but depends almost entirely on federal funding, which makes it unreliable. States should transition to funding and running their aid programs without federal involvement.
There are other benefits to reform. Programs run at lower levels of government tend to be less distant and impersonal, more adaptable, more accountable, and have fewer long-term dependency problems. It is easier to fix a problem in your own town than it is to solve one halfway across the country from a Washington office building.
Private aid tends to work better than government aid. Everyday citizens should consider donating and volunteering at a local food pantry, soup kitchen, or shelter and look for other ways to help people in their community. Americans gave $550 billion to charities last year, according to the National Philanthropic Trust. That makes us among the world’s most generous donors, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of our income. We have the means to succeed where Washington fails.
The historian David Beito’s book “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State” shows the rich history of neighbors helping neighbors in pre-New Deal America and how that degraded when Washington took over the job. Even in a society much poorer than ours is today, people found ways to help each other out.
Although government aid has crowded out a lot of private aid, that private infrastructure is still there in the form of non-profits, churches, families, friends, and neighbors. More importantly, the will to help is still there. Anyone who puts their mind to it can do what Washington can’t. So why not you?
The most important lesson from the latest federal shutdown is this: Don’t trust Washington, and don’t give the politicians there any more power.
Poverty relief is just one example out of many that demonstrate why a combination of federalism and private initiative can provide higher-quality services that are not affected by federal shutdowns.
Ryan Young is senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)./InsideSources
