Young: Shutdown lesson — don’t depend on D.C.
The recent federal government shutdown has underscored a critical vulnerability in the nation’s safety net programs, particularly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). As the shutdown unfolded, it became evident that reliance on Washington for essential aid can leave vulnerable populations—such as hungry families—at risk when political disagreements prevent the passage of budgets. The consensus across the political spectrum is that when individuals require assistance, it should be readily available. However, the challenge lies in how to effectively deliver that support. The article argues that the solution lies in decentralizing aid, moving it closer to the communities that need it most. By empowering state and local governments to fund and manage their own relief programs, the adverse effects of federal political stalemates can be mitigated, ensuring that aid is consistently accessible.
Transitioning SNAP and similar programs away from federal dependency offers several advantages. Programs managed at the state or local level are often more responsive, adaptable, and accountable to the communities they serve. This localized approach can foster a sense of personal connection and urgency in addressing issues, making it easier to implement solutions tailored to specific needs. Additionally, historical evidence suggests that private aid can be more effective than government programs. The article references David Beito’s book, “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State,” which highlights the robust tradition of neighborly support in pre-New Deal America—a model that has diminished as federal programs took precedence. Despite the encroachment of government aid, the infrastructure for private assistance, including non-profits, churches, and local initiatives, remains intact and is often driven by a genuine desire to help.
Ultimately, the takeaway from the recent shutdown is clear: placing trust in Washington for poverty relief is fraught with risk. Instead, the article advocates for a combination of federalism and private initiative as a more reliable framework for delivering essential services. By encouraging citizens to engage directly with their communities—through donations, volunteering, or supporting local charities—the article emphasizes the potential for grassroots efforts to fill the gaps left by federal programs. With Americans donating approximately $550 billion to charities last year, the capacity for local action is significant. The message is straightforward: rather than waiting for Washington to act, individuals have the power and resources to make a difference in their neighborhoods, ensuring that help is always within reach for those in need.
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
