Partially right for sure. Sowell looks at it from the point of view of a patchwork system in place to substitute for a real change.
Rather than curing the cold, we treat the symptom, so to speak. It depends, especially since the idea of "welfare" covers a
lot of systems in use, like business subsidies and tax credits (debatable).
On one hand, welfare is meant to keep those who are standing just above the cracks from falling into them. It is the bottom-tier
of what is considered acceptable living, and keeps its recipients as such. There was a point where welfare was meant to be
a transitional situation, and not a way of life as a segment of the population use it. However, one would think that rather than dole
out a predetermined amount of cash in exchange for...breathing...every month, the funds and resources would be better spent
largely in exchange for community works leaning toward infrastructure and public services. Something that can put a man to work
and give him skills that can translate when times are better economically for him.
Rather than foodstamps and EBT, we could be looking at federally funded farmers markets (spent locally at mayoral discretion with
the cooperation of Aldermen) to provide fresh food options and not give people free reign to spend good money on cheetos and
arizonas when that cash could have been spent on brocolli and fresh chicken.
The issue then becomes how do you quantify what needs to go where, and who are in need of a handout here, and who needs
a hand-up there. As such, it became easier to just dump funds into blanket programs and let the rats scramble and figure it out.
Welfare isn't the problem, priorities are, those of the recipients and those of the big decision makers.
We could go through a renaissance in the USA if we slashed literal percentage points off the military budget and went county to county,
city to city and gave grants (not loans) to school districts, mental health facilities, community rehabilitation, public construction projects,
etc. The money is there, and it is obvious to anyone who looks at quality of life exactly what areas need more help than others.
The money doesn't have to be given to the people, as many will spend frivolously, but in good faith, it can be done in such a visible way
that any person in need can get access to life-changing opportunities that also directly benefit their community, and not just themselves.
