The new Trump budget has brought into question, once again, the benefit of spending on public programs like NPR and PBS. Today, though, I want to talk about a different kind of spending: entitlements.

Some bemoan the negative connotation of the name, but it's a word that exactly describes the psychology- and sometimes the argument for- entitlement spending. People have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But somewhere along the line, people started to think the basics weren't enough. When catastrophe hit in the 1930's, people were happy to see Big Brother step in and alleviate their suffering. The problem of entitlement spending is that once it started, it never stopped. From crisis relief to regular poverty management, we get our present-day welfare state. But has this produced results? Is life better for people with welfare?

The short answer is no. Relief, as it turns out, is very different from actually curing poverty. Families on welfare, generally, stay on welfare anywhere from 2-13 years. And if you ask economists, like Thomas Sowell, it was the welfare state that destroyed the black family. It's simple to see how something so well-intentioned could so wrong. If you make it easier on people in a certain condition, say single motherhood, then you take away the negative reinforcement. And while the humanitarian in us says nobody should have to suffer, we have to remember, you learn not to touch the hot stove when you burn your hand, not when mommy puts a towel between your palm and the stove top.

Government intervention on this level has another effect, alluded to earlier in this piece. When your friend loans you $5 because you left your wallet at home, (most of us) will feel awkward until we pay back the favor. When the government gives you something, it's a faceless entity helping you. There's no one to payback, no guilt if you keep taking. It becomes dependency and it contributes to the vicious cycle of poverty. Incentivizing certain behaviors and punishing attempts to leave the system creates a precarious situation for people who would lose their benefits for making just a little bit more and still be impoverished.

This article begs the question: if our government can't solve poverty, then who does? The answer lies in your communities. In the people. When nobody expects the government to help, you tend to feel more responsible for your neighbor because you know nobody else is gonna step up to do it. It's your friend handing you $5 and, now, you're responsible for getting those $5 back to your neighbor. Your friend won't punish you for going from earning $10 an hour to $15. It seems to me to be a much more personal and effective system. In any case, we'll see where things turn but until then,

Good Luck America.