In the wake of an estimated $8 billion in taxpayer money stolen through fraud in Minnesota's welfare programs, public outrage has focused on accountability and oversight. However, columnist Larry Elder poses a more fundamental question in a recent piece: why is the government involved in welfare at all?
The Constitutional Question at the Heart of Welfare
Elder challenges the very premise of federal welfare programs, asking, "Where in the Constitution does it permit the federal government to extract money from taxpayers for charity?" He anchors his argument in the words of James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," who in 1794 opposed a bill to aid French refugees on constitutional grounds.
Madison stated he could not "lay my finger on that article of the Constitution" that granted Congress the right to spend money on "objects of benevolence." Elder extends this historical view, noting that for most of American history, charity was a private, community-driven endeavor—from person to person, or through houses of worship and non-profits—not a government function.
Private Charity vs. Public Welfare: A Study in Efficiency
To illustrate a more effective model, Elder draws on his personal experience as a loaned executive for the United Way of Cleveland. He describes a system built on accountability, where donors could see exactly how their contributions were used for local initiatives like preschools, youth programs, and care for the elderly.
"How do I know my money will be spent properly?" was the most frequent question he faced, leading to rigorous application processes and follow-ups. This model, powered largely by volunteers, ensured that 90-95% of each dollar donated reached its intended beneficiaries.
Elder starkly contrasts this with government welfare programs, which he characterizes as "riddled with waste, fraud and abuse." He cites economist Milton Friedman's framework, labeling government welfare as the least efficient type of spending: "somebody else's money on somebody else."
The Social Cost of Government Dependency
The column goes beyond financial efficiency to examine social impacts. Elder suggests that "no-questions-asked public welfare" can induce dependency and negatively affect work ethic. He points to a Center for Immigration Studies profile indicating that nearly half of working-age Somali adults in Minnesota who have lived in the U.S. for over a decade cannot speak English "very well," implying a failure of integration fostered by the welfare system.
He argues for a return to the vibrant civil society observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s, where Americans of all backgrounds formed countless "mutual aid societies" and associations to address community needs—from building schools to supporting charities.
Elder concludes that private welfare, driven by citizen generosity, is less likely to create entitlement, delivers more value per dollar, and fosters less dependency than government programs. The massive fraud in Minnesota, he contends, is not just a failure of management but a symptom of a fundamentally flawed system that strays from constitutional principles and historical American practice.
