Mormons and The Morality of Utilizing Public Assistance

I meant to comment on the other thread, but I do not believe that there is any longer in place a “directive” not to postpone children. Certainly many leaders have taught that over the years, and Sister Beck has alluded to it again, but the official position of the Church is that the matter of timing and number of children is between the husband and wife, seeking God’s blessing.

The most controversial talk about public assistance and LDS couples was given by President Benson at BYU. http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6162 Among other things, he condemned taking of food stamps and other “unearned” benefits by LDS.

However, I do not think this represents the position of the Church, which pretty much leaves to the individual the choice whether and when to accept public assistance. There was a time when a recipient of government assistance could not receive Church assistance, but this is no longer the case.

We lived in the Boston area while my hubby went to grad school. I was home with our infant daughter and we were fortunate to have a “situation”– I cooked, did light cleaning/laundry, ran errands for a family in exchange for our basement apartment. We lived on fumes then and even after we moved to a bigger apartment when our son came along. The biggest expense was health insurance each semester. Hubby was covered, but the kids and myself were not. My parents helped us out once or twice to make the insurance payment. I never even thought of public assistance. After talking with other young families in our ward, I discovered that many of them had the state health care for those with low income. It didn’t bother me,nor did I think of signing up for it. I have always felt that public assistance was there for those in a more dire circumstance than I. My parents were able to help. Public assistance was for those without that kind of safety net. I feel that public assistance is important for those who really need it.
We never thought of postponing children due to any financial ideal. We felt the timing was right. And even though it was tough during those school years, and we didn’t have much, I wouldn’t have traded it for anything.

MY husband and I were lucky enough to get our bachelor’s degrees at the same time. After we figured out that we would be leaving school at the same time, we went ahead and planned on my husband getting a job, and us having a baby right away. We timed it so that the baby was born about 6 weeks after graduation. We applied for Medicaid for the prenatal treatment (and every other LDS couple we knew did the same thing). By the time we actually had the baby we had a job, an apartment and health insurance. We haven’t used Medicaid or any other sort of public assistance since.
Part of why we felt it was a good decision is because we knew we wouldn’t be using it for long, and that we already had and would continue to pay taxes to support such a program.
Several of our peers were doing the same things.
And I am of the opinion that medical costs should be taken care of by the community (I am in favor of universal health care). So if someone can afford to feed clothe house and care for a child then the cost of medical care, ideally should not prevent them from having kids.

I don’t have a problem with people going on welfare since I’m generally a leftist and wish that the government provided more services for families such as protected paternity leave and day-care for working parents. But I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of going on welfare and then condemning so-called ‘welfare queens’ or ‘big government socialists.’ Having gone to high school in Utah, many of my friends married young and had several children without considering finances. They are now on welfare but in talking to them they don’t seem to consider it welfare. They do not place themselves in the same category as the single moms on my street getting food stamps. There seems to be some strange disconnection there.

There was a fascinating debate on this subject in BYU’s newspaper about a year ago. Someone wrote in to condemn those who use welfare to start families and it set off a huge and very angry debate.

Also, the church recently reprinted another one of Marion Romney’s talks about welfare– In the March 2009 issue of the Ensign, “The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance”. The article ticked me off with its subtle jabs at those who receive assistance. I found the language pretty offensive.

Caroline, If you look in the July Ensign, which was largely focused on self-reliance, you will find counsel there that people who find themselves unemployed should as a matter course:
apply for unemployment,
apply for whatever government assistance is available to them.

I have no problem with people accessing state programs such as children’s health insurance programs, etc. If I remember correctly, I think the typical amount of time a person accesses assistance is something just around a year, although in these economic times it may be longer now.
We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. We also believe in being honest. If you’re honest in your application, and if you qualify for the benefit, I say use it. But, while you’re accessing the benefit, work really hard to get yourself out of that situation.
Ethics is a tricky thing.
I know a mother of 4 who stayed home full time while her husband worked 3 jobs and she had public assistance. My values are that she should get a job, even if that job is providing day care so she can be at home. But, others might disagree.

First of all, I really enjoyed reading your post.

1- I think it is probably not ethical in the majority of cases. It’s irresponsible to demand that others pay to raise our children for us.
2 – We’ve decided against it
3 – It definitely seems that the stigma about it has gone away, both in society, the church, and particularly mormon culture. It’s amazing to me the number of young couples who are figuring out how to apply for gov’t assistance even before they’re married/have kids. It’s in the plan ahead of time.

I have to say I lean to the side of not wanting the gov’t providing many services, but I have to give credit to margaret who points out the hipocrisy often involved. I’ve known so many married students at BYU with kids, on medicaid, who will go on and on about “welfare” and how much is wrong with the system, never making the connection that they’re receiving it themselves.

I don’t have a problem with people using it when a situation arises beyond their control, but I take issue with those that think that my wife (struggling and working to help put me through grad school) should be paying taxes to pay for them to have kids instead of saving that money so that we can do the same.

I’m basically tired of people thinking that the money coming from the gov’t is “free money” that just magically got there and is up for the grabs (and if I don’t grab it someone else will, so I might as well.)

Really interesting (and tricky) questions you’ve raised. I absolutely think there are situations when it is unethical to use gov’t assistance, but aside from outright fraud I think it’s tough to judge someone else’s decision to use it.

My husband and I have never had to use welfare, but we were both older, both finished with grad school and had jobs when we got married and even started thinking about a family. Tough to say what we would have done in different circumstances.

I think that the general perception of gov’t (and church) welfare has definitely morphed since its inception. I would agree that the lack of recent statements about it indicate that church leaders recognize how tricky it can be for families to negotiate this.

Having said that, the church is pretty clear in its current counsel on self-reliance. We are supposed to do what we can to take care of ourselves and provide for our own families. (I wonder if people see using welfare as part of doing that?) Then if we need help, we are supposed to turn to our families first. I’m a ward Relief Society president and I’m amazed at the number of people I’ve seen in financial trouble who refuse to ask their families for help, but have no problem asking the bishop to pay their rent. Not sure what that is.

With the current economic situation, my stake leaders have counseled us to encourage members to make sure they take advantage of all gov’t assistance available before turning to the church for help. For instance, if you qualify for food stamps, do that before getting a food order. (Which, frankly, is going to be so much easier for you anyway.) But this is for those people who have been hit by hard times, not necessarily people who are “planning” on using assistance. As it is, I’ve become incredibly well-acquainted with local welfare resources since I got this calling. We just had a big stake RS training specifically on welfare resources available in the community.

As one who generally favors state welfare programs and universal health care, I’m not overly troubled by young couples using Medicaid and WIC to start their families. But I am REALLY bugged by the hypocrisy of those same people complaining about everyone else abusing the system, as Margaret pointed out. There are so many people who complain about big government handouts, but are perfectly willing to take them.

We have a broken health care system and we should fix it. I’m guessing that there are very few Mormon families who can say that they’ve never benefited from pell grants, government subsidized school loans, veterans benefits, the former AFDC (now TANF), social security benefits such as skilled nursing care coverage of the last resort, the WIC program,Free or Reduced Cost School Lunches or State Health programs of some sort.

It’s time for Mormons as well as others to get educated about how the system is currently working and then engage candidly in a conversation about what can be done to fix the problems in the system which are legion. This means supporting the current effort to try to fix the health care system before it entirely implodes.

It’s interesting to me that so many people found it impossible to get private insurance coverage that covered pregnancy and childbirth. I didn’t have any such problem, but then, that was 10 years ago in California. (Trying to get individual insurance for a pre-existing condition, on the other hand, is in fact impossible.)

I think people should avoid using public assistance if they can, but I agree that it is really only unethical if it is used fraudulently.

Interestingly, my husband and I had three children while he was still in school, and we never did use public assistance (nor were our parents supporting us), but people still tsk-tsked us for our irresponsibility, having all these children that we couldn’t possibly afford.

yikes, should’ve edited.
“I believe MOST of the young mormon families like myself and my friends are NOT trying to make those decisions lightly”

Just this month I received a bill for over $300 for my daughter’s six-month vaccinations. We have insurance–or, as I like to put it, “insurance”–but they are refusing to cover shots and well-baby checkups. And as so many have noted, getting pregnancy covered–even “covered”–is often difficult, or impossible. I’ve known insured people who pay the thousands of dollars to have a child that the _un_insured paid out of pocket for a pregnancy twenty years ago.

I realize that providing for, raising, feeding, clothing, caring for and educating my children is my and my husband’s responsibility. That said, I also think society should provide a certain level of support for the parenting enterprise, since it will not continue to exist unless it produces the next generation. Part of that support, in my view, includes affordable health care. This doesn’t seem to exist for many people. The insured are the new under-insured, and the under-insured are the new uninsured.

All of that’s a longwinded way of saying that I would never bat an eye at anyone using public assistance to pay for health care, especially. I do understand the concerns about people who start their families before they can afford to pay for everything themselves, but at the same time the economy and health care have changed so drastically in the last couple of generations that it’s just no longer possible for most people to start having kids when they once did AND pay for everything themselves. And of course we never know the entirety of others’ circumstances. They may have planned to wait and been surprised by a pregnancy, for example.

Especially in this economy, I consider it a matter of sheer luck that my husband and I have never had to use public assistance. Our circumstances, like everyone’s, could change any day.

I’d share others’ reservations about those who use public assistance and criticize it but to be fair I’ve never heard anyone criticizing it who (to my knowledge) was on it. Maybe I was in a different world during my BYU years.

My conservative-leaning husband refused to let us get any governmental help during our lean student years. He said that if we really needed it, we’d go to the church for help.

After a few weeks of my skipping meals (due to no grocery money) and watering down the kids’ milk & apple juice to stretch it further, I went and applied for WIC without telling my husband first. The milk, carrots & peanut butter were so heavenly.

Anonymous, your story reminds me of something my MIL once told me about the early years of her marriage. My FIL worked for CES as a seminary teacher and made so little that they qualified for food stamps, but at the time CES forbade its employees from using them. Hopefully both salaries and policies are more generous now, although from what I understand it’s still very difficult to support a family on a CES salary.

Isn’t all this hating on the WIC recipients who simultaneously decry welfare abuse a little like hating on the drug addict who decries drug abuse? A user can still be a valid critic, even while being a stunning hypocrite. Indeed, it appears these casual users are the best evidence of failure of the system. They prove Benson’s points precisely.
For me, I think the law is fairly clear and the rationalizations fairly weak. No one is entitled to pursue an M.D., J.D., Ph.D., correct? Why then would they be entitled to pursue such degrees and have several small children at the same time? Makes little sense to me.

I think that a lot of times, these types of conversations go all or nothing. Either all government services/entitlements are good or all are bad. You either have to want single-layer universal healthcare or want the government completely out of your life.

For me, government serves a useful purpose, but we need to keep it in check. With regard to entitlements, I think the gov’t has two main responsibilities: create equal opportunity and serve as a safety net. To that end, I support public schools, pel grants, student loans – things that provide equal opportunity to all to succeed if they want to. I also support limited food stamps, unemployment, etc. as a safety net, but a safety net is just that – something you turn to in an emergency when all other resources are exhausted.

To answer your questions:
1. Yes, I do think there are situations when it is less than ethical to use safety net services. I think that planning to start and raise a family on taxpayer money is one of those situations.

2. We had three children while my husband was in graduate school. We paid for private insurance through the school and took out a boatload of student loans we are paying back over a 30 year period (even though we lived on a very tight budget). We qualified for food stamps, but I didn’t feel it was someone else’s responsibility to feed my kids if I could feed them myself. I chose to stay at home. I could have chosen to work or postpone having kids. So, taking out student loans seemed the most self-reliant thing to do.

I was surrounded by other LDS couples who were using food stamps, Medicaid, etc. to get through school. It would irk me to see them using WIC to feed their kids while shopping at GAP.

3. I really don’t think that Mormon leadership views the utilization of public welfare much differently now. I thik that if they did, Marion Romney’s article wouldn’t have been printed recently, and we would have different counsel over the pulpit.

I am not going to begrudge people who use government services because they find themselves in a tight spot. But, I have a hard time figuring out why some Mormons think that the command to “multiply and replenish the earth” and not postpone having families “entitles” us to start those families using the money of others.

That would be the admonition to procreate I was referring to as being indirect at times. I wasn’t suggestion that we’ve been encouraged to procreate indirectly (sperm donation?)- I think that’s frowned upon, unless adoption counts.

Also – admonition and counsel do not justify or equal entitlement , though I understand and am sympathetic to your fire in a swimming pool argument.

My wife became unexpectedly pregnant during a small gap of her insurance coverage. We reluctantly signed up for medicaid, etc. Then she miscarried. When she got her new insurance ($100 a month – who can’t pay for that unless their disabled or lazy?) we got pregnant again, and were so glad that our insurance was paying for it. Like some have mentioned, I feel very strongly that if you’re against the nanny state, you should do your best to take care of yourself. I saw it as a matter of principle, and that doing otherwise would be hypocritical.

Our life insurance counselor (LDS) asked us why we weren’t on Medicaid and Baby your Baby, saying that we paid taxes. I didn’t bother going on a rant, I just politely insisted that we wouldn’t do it.

Now, we are both unemployed and I have a few job prospects and she’s due in a month. That’s okay. I’m doing my best, and if we need money, maybe we’ll ask our parents if it gets bad enough, but I don’t think it is moral to go on welfare casually and for convenience.

Cameron,
You wrote:
Then she miscarried. When she got her new insurance ($100 a month – who can’t pay for that unless their disabled or lazy?) [sic]
My response is that you are very lucky that her insurance cost only $100/mo. I’m not lazy, but I am disabled and I because I’m also a cancer survivor with expensive ongoing health needs, no private insurance carrier will cover me. While I think it’s wonderful that healthy people can so easily get cheap health insurance, those of us who desperately need it are typically not so fortunate.

I really struggle with the family issue. I have several family members (ranging from grandparent to parent to uncles/aunts) who are not self-reliant. They seem to have no problem living off of other people on a consistent basis (YEARS). I struggle with what my responsibility as their family member is. On the one hand, I feel that I am counseled to help family members in need. On the other hand, they seem to have no desire to really help themselves, and they would suck my children’s futures away if they could. So, I try to help in areas that help them to be more self-reliant (paying for tuition so they can further their education) or true emergencies (but there are “emergencies” every week – that’s what happens when you don’t do things like maintenance on your car. It breaks down on the side of the road and costs thousands of dollars to repair).

It then makes me feel guilty that they are going to the church for help, but I don’t think that just because we are blood-related means that I have to let them suck our finances dry and leave us destitute.

To my knowledge, none of them use much (or any) public assistance because that would be “bad”, but living as a dole off their family and church seems OK.

To answer your question about how the Mormon leadership views public welfare currently, I went to the lds.org website and looked under alphabetical topics and brought up welfare. There were at least 10 different talks listed there with names such as “Becoming Self-Reliant” and “In the Lord’s Own Way”—-all of them teaching the same principles of self-reliance, family and church assistance that has been taught in the church since the beginning. Here is a quote from one
The Lord’s “own way” includes, first, reliance on self, then on the family. As parents care for their children, they, in turn, may reciprocate when parents become less able. Family pride promotes solicitude for each member, taking priority over other assistance.

If one’s family can’t help, the Lord’s “own way” includes the Church organization. The bishop is assisted by priesthood quorums and good sisters of the Relief Society, organized to look “to the wants of the poor, searching after objects of charity and … administering to their wants.”
So the teachings of the prophets and the church have not changed; they are the same as they always were on this issue. The people, however, have changed and what we are seeing now is a response to the change in the people–not the correct principles always taught.

I have quite a bit of anger and confusion about this bc the LDS part of my family are EzraTaftBenson-Bircher-Birther-Truther-Deathers are the only ones who have relied on public assistance. They go on and on about “those people” (basically members of minority groups) using “their” money, and yet they have used public assistance, incl. AFDC, food stamps and subsidized housing at various times. I believe in socializing many of the costs of raising families. I ardently support public schools. I believe that medical outcome should not depend on the wealth of the patient. I believe that children should have food, clothing and shelter as a matter of right. I just wish that when my LDS relatives accuse me of being a “threat” to their “liberty” and responsible for the “unredressed genocide of the Saints” because of my liberal politics they would just remember that they have used the same services which they would deny others.

Thank you for this thought-provoking thread Caroline!

As a kid, I never thought of our family as poor. However, when I realized that a family we knew that received food through a non-profit (probably in addition to government assistance) ate better than us, I asked my mom why we didn’t. We had the essentials and she was proud of her independence.

I can see the ethical use of such programs (we did have church assistance for a time). However, what appalled me was to realize that another acquaintance milked the government for all she could. She didn’t get married so she could have welfare. That made me sick.

Now, as I know quite a few young Mormon couples using public assistance, I don’t really worry about it. They will be contributing members of society. And even if they are not, it is not my place to judge.

However, the most common use I see is of Medicaid (not food stamps). This really just makes me wish we had some type of universal healthcare system.

Putting the young families aside, I am absolutely appalled by the number of singles I know who are uninsured. It quite frankly scares me. Sometimes their families absorbs the costs, sometimes the church, and sometimes they acquire massive quantities of debt. I think the government should do more in this matter.