Statement of Father Robert A. Sirico, President,
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Welfare Reform and Work

April 3, 2001

Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I thank you for asking me to testify today.

For several years now, the question of welfare reform has figured prominently on the public policy agenda in our country, with people from all political persuasions recognizing that it is neither economically possible nor morally sensible to continue with the type of welfare initiatives bequeathed to us by the New Deal and Great Society programs of the past.

An integral part of the resulting debate has been the issue of whether people who are in receipt of public benefits should be required to work. Others will be able to testify as to the relative economic efficiency of workfare programs, both in terms of concrete material results and the cost of such programs to the taxpayer.

But before these issues can even be considered, it is vital that the moral questions raised by workfare be addressed. In some parts of our country, workfare has been described, in rather emotional terms, as being akin to a form of slavery. Not for the first time, we observe that, at the heart of a public policy debate, there are profoundly moral issues at stake, and until these are settled, there will always be questions about the basic ethical legitimacy of workfare programs. Today, I would like to focus your attention on two of the most important of these moral issues. The first concerns the nature of the obligations that we accept when we receive assistance from others. The second is why it is important for people receiving welfare benefits to work if they are able to do so.

Let us begin with the first of these questions. People in receipt of welfare payments are effectively being paid an income by the community, just as public officials, military personnel, and politicians are paid an income by taxpayers. There is no reason why welfare recipients should not also give something back to the community that is, one hopes temporarily, sustaining their material existence. I appreciate, of course, that different circumstances will dictate how much work should be required from different people. No one has a desire to place unbearable burdens, for example, on women who have been deserted by their husbands and who are struggling to raise, often single-handedly, young children. I am also conscious of the potential sacrifices that workfare asks employers to undertake. Nonetheless, when such programs are administered in accordance with the social principle known as subsidiarity, that is, administered at the level closest to the person in need, the likelihood of this being done in an intelligent and appropriate way will increase. The basic principle that people in receipt of payments from others should be, as a normative matter of justice, give something in return, reflected in public policy.

Many will be interested to know that this position has been integral to the Christian tradition from its very beginning. Some of you will recall St. Paul's insistence that 'If a man will not work, let him not eat'. In the ancient Christian text, the Didichade (probably dating from the first century), we find some advice that modern policy planners might do well to adapt for use within a contemporary context. It reads: "Let everyone who comes to you in the name of the Lord be received; but, after testing him, you will know him . . . If the one who comes to you is a traveler, help him as much as you can; but he shall not remain with you more than two of three days unless there is need. If he wishes to settle among you and is a craftsman, let him work and eat. If he has no trade, provide according to your conscience, so that no Christian shall live among you idle. If he does not agree to do this, he is trading on the name of Christ; beware of such men."

Society does have an obligation to assist those who are in need. Those who can work but cannot find a job, however, also have an obligation to those who are assisting them to meet their basic needs. Workfare, in this sense, is an expression of the essential justice that underlies this mutual obligation. At the same time, it also integrates the charitable impulse with realism about the negative effects of constantly giving people something for nothing. St. Paul was not naïve about humanity's capacity to use and abuse the good will of others. Moreover, to disregard this reality in the formation of public policy, is in essence to disrespect the creative capacity of very people we seek to assist.

This brings us to my second point: why it is important for people receiving welfare to work. There are many ways in which workfare benefits the community, such as augmenting the amount of human capital that exists in society. But perhaps more important is the effect of workfare on the personality and moral habits of the recipients themselves. Depending upon the type of work that is undertaken by workfare participants, there is an increased likelihood that they will learn new skills that will assist them in finding and keeping non-workfare employment. In short, workfare will help them to prepare for the responsibility and long hours that are usually associated with higher paying jobs. It is difficult to underestimate the benefit that this can have upon people, especially those who have never seen anyone in their family or immediate community in permanent employment. To this extent, workfare can have a role to play in enhancing the skill-base of those who have had little opportunity or incentive to develop the type of work-habits that are essential for the successful performance of any job. The simple habit of being at work on time may be taken as a given by most of us. Yet many people need to acquire this habit. Workfare will help them to do so.

I use the term 'habit' quite deliberately, because it underlines another dimension to my thoughts about why people on welfare should be required to work. Whatever the nature of our jobs, few of us would dispute that work is a central dimension of our personality. Work opens up new horizons for us. It can help us, for example, to think about how we manage our time, how to balance responsibilities to our families and employers, or how to be more creative in whatever it is that we do. At an even deeper level, of course, it is through work that we can develop many virtuous habits of action that express our development as persons.

Work often requires us, for instance, to be industrious, to act prudently, and even, at times, to take measured risks. It may also discourage us from being slothful, imprudent, or developing an excessive aversion to taking entrepreneurial risks. While workfare may not immediately immerse us in all such habits--after all, they do have to be developed and often are years in the making--it will provide an orientation for many people to acquire these moral goods. From this standpoint, we see that workfare has the potential to provide many people from marginalized backgrounds with the opportunity to acquire and/or grow these essential types of moral habits.

None of this, of course, is to underestimate the difficulties that our society faces in transforming the way in which we help the unemployed in the United States. To take our society from the handout mentality of public assistance without obligation, to a culture of solidarity that is attached to the notion of mutual obligation and fulfillment of responsibility, may, in some instances, be traumatic. It challenges all of us, ranging from employers willing to undertake the training of unskilled employees, to those long-term unemployed who have been encouraged to think that welfare is obligation-free.

Not only, however, is there no reasonable alternative to workfare, but the results of workfare programs promise to help the unemployed in ways that go beyond the material. Virtuous moral habits of action will serve people in good stead, no matter the situation in which they find themselves. In an economy in which human capital continues to assume great importance, the necessity of possessing such virtues will only increase. As such, workfare does not amount to an attack on poor people. Rather, it is very much in the best interests of those who, for whatever reason, find themselves without paid employment.

Thank you for your attention.