Faith-Based Sleight-of-Hand Diverts Us From Real Needs

When a team of con artists goes to work, one person is the “dipper.” That person reaches for the prize. Just as important is the person who creates a distraction. That person is the “stall.”

The folks in Washington have the act down pat.

I’m speaking of our system of delivering social services. Like the job-training programs for people coming off welfare. Drug rehabilitation programs to help others regain their lives. Child-protective programs for those who drew the wrong parents. Shelters for battered wives. These are the healing, helping hands of society for which the rules of supply and demand were long ago suspended.

President Bush and the House of Representatives don’t want us to think they are entirely ignoring the many problems of our complicated and sometimes unforgiving society. So they’re out madly “dipping” for votes by addressing the issue in a fashion that generates lively, even furious debate. At the same time, they’ve turned the whole process into a “stall,” diverting us from the real questions of America’s needs. So far, I’d say they’re doing a pretty good job of conning us about what to do without proposing that we do much at all.

Should religious charities be allowed at the taxpayer trough?

Of course! Not on your life! What difference does it make?

I’ll pick the latter answer, for now. Yes, I’m alarmed about any casual mix of church and state. I know there will be some disagreeable proselytizing, and plenty of friction, once these religious groups get hooked on government subsidies. On the other hand, I know plenty of people in faith-based organizations whose selflessness is an example for us all. When it comes to virtue, I’d take a crew from, say, Habitat for Humanity any day over a limousine packed with Wall Street greedheads, and I think we would have a better country for it.

Wait, what about employment discrimination? Should tax-sponsored religious charities be granted a legal loophole to exclude employees who believe, or behave, differently? Of course not. Giving us that tired bone to chew on is all part of the “stall.” How many gays and lesbians, for example, really want to devote themselves to bigots when there are so many good groups that yearn for their help?

But let’s stand back from this whole debate for a minute. America’s safety net is full of holes. Our risky experiment in welfare reform is now coming up against a sputtering economy, spreading layoffs, declining tax revenues, philanthropic retrenchment, increasing immigration and the disturbing truth that our minimum wage is not a living wage. Now there’s a batch of challenges worth our attention.

I want welfare reform to succeed. There are some positive signs. From 1994 to 1999, cash welfare caseloads declined significantly. Births to teen mothers are down. Two-parent households are on the increase. Even if you opposed welfare reform, you should want it to succeed. Failure is not apt to rekindle any kindheartedness in the land. There are millions of children caught in this. And we can all do the math about the availability and distribution of jobs.

This is a far more pressing matter with vastly greater stakes than how the Salvation Army defines the spirit of Christmas.

Meanwhile we are distracted. Blessed with the greatest budget surplus in history, President Bush and his acolytes in Congress are arranging to unravel the safety net further. The president’s budget proposal calls for a 33% reduction in the capital fund for public housing, an 18% reduction in help for dislocated workers, an 11% cut in nutrition assistance for women and children, a 10% rollback in job training partnerships with private industry.

By any measure and no matter what your philosophy, these proposals warrant head-on debate. If the social Darwinists want to win, they should do it fair and square: by testing to see whether Americans will answer according to their hearts or their pocketbooks.

We shouldn’t have to put up with this stall-and-dip come September when the Senate gets down to the business of setting its priorities. The president will surely choose a smoother customer to replace the hapless John DiIulio as the administration’s faith-based point man when the battle resumes. But if we continue to ignore the shrinking pie to argue about whether more good-hearted groups are needed to serve it up, we will have been conned.