It was just a casual conversation at a birthday party, but
one particular comment from a person I had just met got my attention and caught
me a bit off balance. Several of
us who were at the party are volunteers for Home Works of America, a local
charitable organization that was the conversation topic. The gist of the
disturbing comment was that any volunteer activity robs somebody of a paying
job and swells the unemployment ranks.
Maybe the speaker was trying to be funny, but he wasn’t
smiling. He was a retired
government employee and, in subsequent conversation, opined that the primary
beneficiaries of government welfare programs are not the people receiving the
benefits but the employees hired to administer the programs. The welfare recipients, he argued, get
a little assistance in their day to day living but the employees who administer
and distribute those benefits make comfortable livings and get generous
retirement benefits.
What reminded me of this conversation was the McGurn column in today’s WSJ about Chicago activities of Catholic Charities, a charitable
organization currently under pressure by the Obama Administration to abandon
its principles and fundamental teachings on marriage and family by offering free
contraceptives as part of its health insurance under the new Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act.
According to McGurn, Chicago Catholic Charities has 2,700
employees and 17,000 volunteers.
The unfortunate thing is that the bulk of funding for Chicago Catholic
Charities comes from the federal government, strings attached. Of course a primary reason that Chicago Catholic Charities has traditionally received federal grants is that 92 cents of every dollar of funding goes
directly to needy recipients and only 8 cents to overhead such as salaries.
A specific example, cited by McGurn, of Catholic Charities’
volunteer-rich activities is its program to help the elderly stay in their own
homes by providing day care, delivered meals, and house cleaning services at a
cost of about $12,000 per year per person thereby avoiding the Medicare expense of $43,000
a year to keep an elderly person in a nursing home.
Other major Chicago Catholic Charities activities included,
in 2011 alone, provision of 21.5 million meals and 458,000 nights of shelter
for the homeless.
Rev. Michael Boland, CEO of the organization, is
quoted in the article as saying he has no idea what percentage of the people
they assist are Catholic because that is a question they never ask. He does know that 80% of the people
they serve are women and children so is a bit disturbed at being accused of
declaring war on women.
However this controversy plays out, there will be an
upside. If Catholic Charities
prevails and is able to continue to receive federal funds to provide services
to the poor in Chicago without compromising its principles, millions will be
served at very low cost, and tens of thousands of employees and volunteers will be given the opportunity to serve selflessly in an efficient and effective organization.
If the government prevails, and Catholic Charities has to cease and desist all federally funded activities, the government can hire thousands, or contract with organizations that will do so, to replace all those volunteers and thereby create some paying jobs. Of course a lot less than 92 cents of the dollars spent will go directly to the poor, but who are the primary beneficiaries supposed to be anyway? Maybe that is what the Big Government folks are thinking.
Tweet
Follow @dkw2020
If the government prevails, and Catholic Charities has to cease and desist all federally funded activities, the government can hire thousands, or contract with organizations that will do so, to replace all those volunteers and thereby create some paying jobs. Of course a lot less than 92 cents of the dollars spent will go directly to the poor, but who are the primary beneficiaries supposed to be anyway? Maybe that is what the Big Government folks are thinking.
Wow! What a logical theory. The current administration's demand has more to do with their intnet on displacing the Catholic Church's volunteers with federal employees than it does with providing free contraceptives to women. How far out of your cheek was your tongue sticking when you wrote that proposition. Sounds like a Trump birther comment to me, and I know for a fact that your a lot smarter than that.
ReplyDeleteOn another note the primary benefits of social welafre are the tens of millions who benenfit not the tens of thousands who administer the program. There is a great differnence in the scale of payments.
I'm glad to get your adrenaline flowing, Andy. But I would argue that social welfare has gone too far, becoming a patronizing demotivator and dependency creator for many recipients, that our objective with government employment should be the same as for private employment: the minimum number required to carry out the essential functions of government, and that the president and I would be in radical disagreement on these two items. I will say that the idea that volunteers are job destroyers was a new one to me, and that the man who made that assertion obviously believes that the more government jobs, the better so long as they pay well and have good early retirement benefits. I think he is a member of a rapidly expanding minority.
DeleteI generally agree with your first proposition regarding the scope and efficiency of social welfare and minimum numbers of folks to administer them wherever they work. I disagree with your second proposition in that I do not think you and the President feel differently in that regard.
ReplyDeleteObviously I find your posts interesting and well researched, and that is why I usually read them but you can get my adrenaline going when you reference some yahoo who showed up at some dinner party as if he is all-knowing (and it's the second time you have referenced him in the last few posts).
As you know, I have worked for the federal government for over thirty years but I have also worked over twenty years in the private sector. I have worked for Boeing as well as manufacturing and engineering service companies. I find the work ethic and attitudes to be comparable wherever I worked. If your party friend feels that what he is doing is not worthwhile, he should have found another enterprise or worked to make the system better. Obviously I happen to think he is wrong, and although I think there are problems, as there are in any large enterprise, the welfare programs are helping the unemployed and the unable to put food on their tables and a roof over their head and it is not a “little” but rather very worthwhile. I know that through your research you know that for the vast majority, welfare is transitory as well, and few receive benefits long term. It helps them get through some trying times. Welfare is always demeaning to those who don’t need it but it can be literally a life saver for many.
Regarding these great federal jobs: Currently federal employees, by the direction of the President Obama (his idea), have been under a two year pay freeze ( he is currently considering a third year as proposed by a Republican congress), and they do not make the same salary as those in the private sector. You need to compare actual job to actual job - mechanical engineer with a mechanical engineer. The average salary (private vice public) comparisons are ludicrous since you get to add all of the food service folks and other low paying jobs into the mix of the private sector. Most of the feds are accountants, doctors, engineers, lawyers, scientist, technicians, Foreign Service, FBI, etc. as opposed to the general assumption that they are all clerks. The majority of the federal retirement system consists of social security and a 401K, though there is a very small defined benefit which is contributed to by employer and employee. Federal employees pay full social security and Medicare premiums. Employees pay a third of their health insurance premiums. NO COMPLAINTS but they are not outlandish. When I left the federal service I was offered almost twice my fed salary, free medical (which I didn’t need), a 401K with 25% company match. I know this isn’t usual regarding benefits for the average guy but but it’s not atypical either considering salary.
Two out of three federal workers serve in the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security and Justice — the very agencies for which conservative senators aim to preserve funding. Only 3.4% of the workforce is located in Health and Human Services Department.
Enough already, I’ve got to go play a round of golf. I admire your ability to put together a continual array of posts – I’m exhausted.