Letter to the Editor

LETTERS: A LEGITIMATE ROLE

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

To the editor:

Welfare reform is now on the way to what is said to be "the end of welfare as we know it." What and how things will change has yet to be seen. Among attitudes prevailing currently is that government is an interloper in the welfare field that is the rightful domain of the private sector. Associated with this is the assertion that the private sector will now become a major player in providing support for those having legitimate need and who are falling through the cracks. Meanwhile, the abusers will be left to other devices to be brought into the mainstream of productivity.

One must recall that government was desperately called into action during the Great Depression when the private sector could not sustain the necessary support. This effort was rescued by the war clouds in Europe bringing about employment in the upswing of our war materiel industries and recruitment into the armed forces. Those years also saw the significant increase in women in the workplace, symbolized by Rosie the Riveter.

After the wind-down of the immediate post-World War II decades, the perceived need for government support materialized into President Johnson's Great Society program, which injected money into the economic mainstream until another era, when a needed shot in the arm was produced with lavish deficit spending to support our nation's struggle in the Cold War.

Now we have come to a point of no return in stopping the flow of red ink in national spending. Restraints on welfare spending need to be matched by equivalent restraints in every sector of spending. In a democratic republic such as ours, government has a legitimate role in dealing with most every challenge in our national life. Men of goodwill can be just as comfortable funding welfare programs through government as through private benevolent systems or even direct gifts, as long as we do not succumb to conditioned demagogic name-calling and casting of aspersions. Let us hope for an objective understanding of our past and a discreet application of our national effort and resources for our future well-being.

GILBERT DEGENHARDT

Cape Girardeau