Confronting Lazarus: The Next Step in Welfare Reform

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

Marvin Olasky

Three years after US welfare reform, Lazarus still awaits us.

The federal legislation of 1996 was pushed by a coalition of Republicans with two kinds of roots, Christian and libertarian. All saw the failure of the Great Society welfare system and worked to minimize governmental activities.

Christians, however, stressed the way that rich individuals should help the poor was through charity, evangelism, and personal involvement. Libertarians, meanwhile, emphasized the market system and the way that a rising tide would lift all boats. Some people are in both groups, but the emphases were distinct.

We’ve seen during the past three years that a strong economy, along with the perception among many of the US poor that welfare would no longer be forthcoming, has worked wonders. Those readily able to work have found work. Welfare rolls are down substantially in every state except those (Hawaii is one notorious example) where government social workers have gone out of their way to sabotage even minimal reform.

Welfare records show a base and a bulge: The numbers held fairly steady during the 1980s and then bulged out from 1989 to 1995, when welfare officials were allowed to push major expansion of the rolls. During the past two years that bulge has disappeared, and many short-term welfare recipients entered or re-entered the economy. Libertarians were right: markets work.

But welfare reform has not yet changed the lives of most of those in the welfare base. Millions are still on welfare and, by necessity or through the use of the 1996 bill’s loopholes, will stay on. Among these are the hard cases, the Lazaruses, and it’s time for them to draw our attention.

Who are the Lazaruses? The name comes from a New Testament parable concerning a beggar, Lazarus, who languished at the gate of a rich man. Both die; Lazarus ends up in heaven, and the rich man in hell, where he is told, "remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony."

Most affluent North Americans no longer have Lazaruses at our gates, but we see them on the street near our offices and on the nightly news, so for those of us enjoying good things now, that’s a pressure cooker of a parable. Some of us hand out small change to such folks, but how many of us can say that we have personally provided life-changing help to a Lazarus?

And yet, the idea of dramatically helping the poor is so deeply imbedded in our culture, that the faithful and faithless alike feel pressure to help Lazarus. That pressure led to the growth of the welfare system, which did work well in one way: It gave some peace of mind to those troubled, for either temporal or spiritual reasons, by visions of Lazarus.

Welfare checks were sensible insurance payments for the affluent: pay your higher taxes or riots will ensue; pay up so you won’t feel bad; perhaps, pay up to show that you are not bad. Beginning in the mid-1960s, the welfare system grew steadily for three decades not because it showed any love to the poor but because it was so convenient for the affluent - and that convenience still remains.

The welfare system has allowed those familiar with the parable of Lazarus, or nagged at by some sense of the quality of mercy, to say, "We have done our good deed. We gave at the office. Leave me alone; I’ve already paid to take care of Lazarus." And I’d suggest that any long-lasting welfare reform has to deal with the question of Lazarus’ care.

When I stumped the United States in 1995 and 1996, pushing for welfare reform, I heard much grumbling about the money going for welfare. I sympathized with the grumblers, but I also asked a pointed question: Would you rather pay taxes or spend time helping a Lazarus one-to-one, perhaps in a grungy part of town? Most preferred to pay up so as to free up their time.

Sometimes I asked a grumbler whether he would adopt a poor child. Responses also were negative.

We might say that Lazarus should take care of himself, but some have never learned how. How will welfare reform help the teenager who grew up largely abandoned by a crack mum and uneducated by a school system, and is now about to have a baby of her own? She needs more than the job that a booming economy can provide her, because with her current mentality and problems she won’t be able to hold onto that job for more than a few days.

This Lazarus needs a mentor who for several years will be by her side to teach her what civilization is all about. She needs to learn that she is made in God’s image and thus has great worth, even though all her life she has been told she is worthless.

The child whom no one will adopt because he is the wrong colour, or because he is emotionally crippled by being shunted around from foster care hovel to foster care house, is another Lazarus. The woman who has been abandoned by her boyfriend because she will not agree to have an abortion is a Lazarus.

Many people worked valiantly for welfare reform in 1995, but passing a bill in 1996 and then winning the battle of the welfare bulge in 1997 and 1998 has been the easy part. Now comes the hard question: are we willing to confront Lazarus? Are we willing to practice true compassion, the kind that is challenging, personal, and spiritual? Will we open our homes to young women anguished by a crisis pregnancy, or to abandoned children who need parents?

And are we willing to challenge ourselves? The most effective poverty-fighting organizations in North America are Christian groups. When homeless alcoholics who break free and start leading decent lives are asked how they did it, the typical response is, "Jesus Christ set me free." Are we willing to honour and support groups that say, to not only the homeless guy with a bottle of Mad Dog but the rich alcoholic as well, that they need Christ to fill the holes in their souls?

Sometimes, when we look at Lazarus, we confront ourselves.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Thursday, June 10, 1999.