 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Q&A Interview Two views on welfare:
The Rev. J. Solomon Benn III By JENNIFER HALPERIN
The Rev. J. Solomon Benn III of St. Paul AME Church in Springfield is proud to be the fourth generation of his family to become a preacher. At age 70, he has spoken on many subjects from many pulpits — often to congregations filled with people in dire economic circumstances. While Benn has preached in several poverty-stricken neighborhoods, he has acquired a reputation as a conservative voice on social issues. Q: What's the biggest problem for people in your neighborhood? A: People have lost their sense of family values and community. I was a Depression baby, and we had to go next door to borrow a cup of sugar, or a cup of butter from the neighbors. We were all in it together. Today, people don't know who lives next door. There's no relationship. Our church is in the neediest community in Springfield. We're smack-dab in the middle of it. I can knock on the doors of dope houses. I see dope pushers buying up properties around here. But I stay right here in the worst community because I feel good on the inside, and I feel like I can try to foster good feelings in other people by getting people back to the basic values they need. The church is one of the only ways to do that. Q: What's the best way to help? A: Well, I know giving them a government check isn't the way to do it. Welfare programs just don't work to pull people up when they have no self-esteem. They don't truly encourage people to get out and find a job. If there were no checks available, I think it would be the only thing that would inspire some people to go find work. I'm not saying we should stop all government checks, but I don't think they're the answer. In my opinion, social programs that helped people never should have been taken out of the churches and put into the government. That was going in the wrong direction. Church-centered programs are based right in their communities; we can see what people need. The government doesn't have that kind of personal involvement. I truly feel it's just been throwing money at problems. Q: Isn't government aid sometimes needed just to keep some people from living on the streets? A: Look, I worked for government for 14 years in Indianapolis. At that time, Lyndon Johnson's anti-poverty programs were in full force, and money was plentiful and I saw it being thrown at people. I was asked to spend $200,000 in a month on neighborhood youth programs. I saw money thrown at housing to build high-rises. Well, the buildings rose but the people hadn't risen morally. They hadn't taken the attitude that they should have pride in where they lived, and move themselves up in the world through hard work. They didn't have the strong family structure in their young lives that made them feel good about themselves and made them feel they deserved better. So they let their surroundings decay, and never tried to move themselves on to better things. I've consulted with young mothers who told me they had babies just for the increased welfare check. I've tried to train them to think differently, but you can't change a person's moral code. Q: So what do we do to fight that line of thinking? Is it even possible? A: I have to tell you, I feel we've lost two generations of people because there was no family or community structure for them. The children are our only hope. I was fortunate in having parents who provided the support to shape my values, and if that meant discipline was needed — well, the rod was not spared. I look to the Jewish community as an example of cohesiveness. It's cohesiveness that goes beyond the temple. They treat their brothers in the right way; there's a kindredness that watches out for and feels responsible for being one's brother's keeper. Slavery took a lot of that away from African-Americans. There was a separation of families. But we can get back to that if we start stressing values again and then follow up on it. Politically, I'm an independent — I vote for the person. But my family's been considered Republican by pundits because of our God-fearing values. The Republican Party has been talking about values, so that's where the association comes in. But that's just rhetoric. For instance, when it comes to permiting prayer in school — serious prayer is important and vital to keeping self-esteem and keeping things in perspective. But more crucial is to re-condition people and re-learn the importance of learning and reading from a young age, and working hard to better your circumstances. That's where the church comes in. At ours, we have a seven-day-a-week program — from Bible study and boy scouting to youth groups where teens can talk about things like peer pressure to have sex or join gangs. We just want to give them a sense of belonging somewhere, a sense of connection. And we teach black history. We do these things without any money. It has to be done at the heart level. We could use some government money, but there'd be strings attached. This is something the community needs to do on its own to take care of its own. 38/April 1995/Illinois Issues
... Professor Rebecca Blank believes the federal Rebecca Blank, an economics professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, is considered an expert on national welfare issues. She has testified before Congress on proposed welfare reforms. Q: Is it important to move welfare programs closer to the people they serve? A: I'm sympathetic to the idea. I believe strongly in state discretion. On the other hand, if we're talking about federal block grants to states, I oppose them. For one thing, only the federal government has the flexibility to respond to the economy's cyclical changes, which affects who and how many people need help. And number two, people keep saying the federal government is not the most efficient when it comes to oversight of programs. But I've seen no evidence that states do it any better. I think a balance between the two makes things run most efficiently. I'm not convinced states are going to be better equipped to handle the bureaucratic end of things. Plus, the federal government has forced states to evaluate things like welfare-to-work programs, and you need an impartial source to consistently evaluate welfare programs. Otherwise, many states wouldn't want to spend the money to do that. Q: Should churches, synagogues and other community organizations shoulder a larger share of social programs? A: I think there would be an expansion of charitable impulses if families were losing aid. But it's just not credible to think a program like Aid to Families with Dependent Children could be replaced by churches. Some people make the argument that government has crowded out some charitable dollars, but we're talking about hundreds and thousands times the amount of money that could be given. Ultimately, I think it's unreasonable — economic nonsense — to believe churches could sustain people as needed. They just don't have the same kind of membership and support they once had to fill the needs that are out there.
Q: Should families assume more responsibility? A: That's a viable conversation that I'm willing to take part in. But I say if we're going to enforce greater responsibility on the part of families, then I think we need to talk about families supporting all needy members. That means looking at the needy elderly especially. That's a group likely to have close relatives in better financial circumstances than they are. At least more likely than single-parent families who have to rely on AFDC. People in those circumstances are likely to have absent fathers, and mothers and sisters who are in the same low-income group that they're in. So I think if you want to talk about getting families to be more supportive of their own, let's talk about support for the elderly. But that's not a conversation we're willing to have. Q: Why not? A: Because we all know elderly people. We understand elderly people. We think one day we could be elderly, needy people. But we don't expect that one day we'll be single and on welfare. We don't understand poor mothers. And then there's the political end of things, which is that the elderly are an extremely organized political group. It was quite striking that when food stamps were taken out [of Congressional Republicans' block grant proposal], it was because of the agricultural lobby's influence. They saw it as a threat to one of their programs. Unfortunately, children and mothers on welfare don't have that kind of lobby. Q: Will so-called punitive measures help lower welfare rolls — like limiting welfare grants for mothers who have additional children? A: There are a lot of reasons in our society that single motherhood numbers have gone up, and only an extremely small component has to do with change in the welfare structure. It's occurring throughout the economic ranks and throughout the Western world. The government didn't get us into the problem of unmarried parents. That's been largely a function of our changing social agenda, like our attitude toward sexual relations and marriage. And changes in employment opportunities for women have been increasing. And at the same time, employment opportunities for men have been declining, causing the economic value of marrying them to decline. You can't get at some of this stuff by limiting APDC grants. You have to do it by talking about pregnancy prevention. You have to do it by talking about the value of staying in school. You have to offer people real alternatives. *
April 1995/Illinois Issues/39
|
|
|
