What to do about federal social programs?

So, I was having a conversation with a friend about whether or not the governmnet should be involved in social programs. My position was that it is not the proper role of the federal government, that we should rely first on family, then on our local church/synagogue/whatever, then on charity and finally on local and state assistance. I did not include the federal government because I sincerely believe this is not their role. Her reply to me was heartfelt, so I will try and respond to it as best I can. It is quoted below:

What do you propose in place of those programs? Everyone says the church should do it. But it's not satisfying that need either. I would LOVE it if none of these programs were necessary, because it would mean that people were doing right and good by each other and truly looking out for and loving their neighbors.

Civilization will never ever work that way. There will always be greed and ugliness, and stomping on the meek... So what do we do with those who truly are "down on their luck".

I was so against these programs until I needed them. When I was suddenly thrust onto my own 2+ years ago, when my marriage ended, I had been at home for 8 yrs, raising and schooling my children. I had skills that i had, thankfully, kept up and even grown during that time. But I had no job and no place to live.

During the worst economy in years, i was competing with everyone for a job. I could not even get seasonal work at Barnes and Nobles! I applied any and everywhere. Dumbed myself down. Built myself up. Short of getting on a pole or corner, I did everything I could. I am grateful my parents were willing to take me and my 4 kids in for the time that they did. But that created an additional burden on them. My (your former ;) ) church helped by getting the kids school supplies and clothes that year (which still makes me want to cry to think about) but I still had no money for my car payment and insurances. I think being in that situation was one of the biggest catalysts for starting my journey. My ex and I had been totally broke at a couple of points in our marriage due to his poor money management and decisions and control that I had no say in.

I wonder if, you would see these programs differently in my shoes? It's so easy to sit back and say someone will take care of it all. But it doesn't work that way.
At least not in my case...

This is a very good question and it comes from the heart.

First, let me state that this friend actually followed the road I pointed out as the preferable one. Family, church, then government assistance. She stated again that "Only by several safety nets (church, family AND government) did I survive." It is fortunate that her family and church were able to help out and I'm glad there was assistance available to her from other resources as well. My argument has never been that welfare should not exist, but instead that it should not be a part of the federal government. Instead, it should be enacted by each state individually to assist their citizens as they see fit because to do so at the federal level is unconstitutional, even if we ignore that fact for our own convenience. Also, I argue that charity is much better at performing this function than government ever could be. In 2008 (I use these numbers because I wanted to use numbers for the same year and these are the ones I found first), Americans, who are a very generouse people compared to other countries in the world, gave 307.5 billion dollars to charities. That same year, the federal government spent 354 billion dollars on welfare programs. The Cato Institute did a study several years ago and determined that 70 percent of the money was spent on bureaucratic overhead. In contrast to that, the average overhead by charities in about 16 percent according to a Forbes study. This pretty much proves that charities are significantly more effective than the government. This of course doesn't even consider the additional bureaucratic hardship the government imposes or the fact that government ends up wasting a lot of their money on people who don't really need it because they are required by law to treat all comers equitably regardless of circumstances. It is all about numbers rather than actual hardship. Finally, I argue that welfare should be a leg up and not a hand out. She used it as a leg up to help her get through a difficult time. I commend her for her strength.

This next part might come off as heartless, but I assure you it isn't intended that way. I completely understand that she was distressed by the additional hardship her situation placed on her family/parents. This is a logical reaction. Nobody ever wants to cause pain/trouble/heartache/etc. for those they love. However, I submit that this is exactly what family is for. We may not want to burden our families and we may not enjoy the emotional state this causes, but it is exactly what we must do. Isn't it great that we have family to lean on in times of trouble? I realize that not everyone has this, but this is and should be our first line of defense in hard times.

Next, I want to point out a statement I read in a book once. The summary was this: that if we want to end poverty in America, we should focus our efforts on single mothers. If we took care of the single mothers in our society, we'd almost eliminate poverty in the U.S. It was an interesting book, the title of which I can't remember right now, that pointed out a lot of the problems with government assistance and advocated that charitable organizations were much better. However, I submit, based on these findings, that we should focus our efforts on the plight of single mothers in this country. How exactly to do this, I don't have an answer for.

On a slightly different note, we've (as a country) tried a lot of different things that have worked or failed to various degrees, but it seems to be the mentality in our government that even if a program is an utter failure, we can't get rid of it and start from scratch or see if the various states can do a better job because somehow we'd be hurting X(fill in the blank for whatever group the politicians want support from) where x can range from children to single women to the poor and on and on. Social programs aren't about helping the poor but instead about figuring out which group will vote for me if I give them money. Social programs are about buying elections. It is just a more civilized way of doing it than driving down the street handing out money.

My contention that the states should be allowed to set up their own programs (or not to set up one) is that the states could do a better job. How can politicians know in Washington, DC what is best for someone down on their luck in Seattle and decide to take money from someone in Virginia to solve the problem they can't even properly define? It is best that people in Washington State figure out ways to help those down on their luck in Washington State. One of the great things about the form of government our founders established is that it allowed and expected that the various states would prove to be an incubator of ideas. If one state tried something and it failed, the other states were unlikely to copy it, but if a state tried something and had massive success, then other states were likely to try something similar. By relying on the federal government for the last 80 years, we've moved away from this model and killed the opportunity for social innovation that should exist and created a system of one size fits all that generally fits hardly anyone.

At this point, I think I've addressed the points my friend was earnestly concerned about. However, I will agree that family alone can be insufficient, that churches aren't doing as much as they could, that we need more charities working harder, etc. However, all these things are better at helping people than the federal government has shown itself to be and I will continue to support elimination of federal programs and the creation of state programs. Of course, we have to ween people off federal programs. We can't expect anyone to start taking care of themselves when they've become reliant on these programs.