The following column contrasts Marvin Olasky’s book, “The Tragedy of American Compassion,” and Jonathon Freedman’s book, “From Cradle to Grave, The Human Face of Poverty in America.” Both books attempt to address and solve the problems plaguing America’s welfare system.

Jonathan Freedman and Marvin Olasky agree that the welfare system in America is broken. They also agree that the problem is its enormous and impersonal bureaucracy. The system depersonalizes the people it is supposed to help and serves to perpetuate their dependence on welfare. But they disagree as to what needs to be done in fixing the system. Freedman would like to see small programs that focus on what the person they aim to help truly needs. Olasky would like to see America deal with poverty in a way similar to that used in pre-twentieth century America. He envisions family and church based charities that help those who truly cannot care for themselves, while pressuring those who can to work.

Freedman uses stories to illustrate the problems he sees with the welfare system. Each story focuses on a different kind problem faced by the person at the center of the story and each person requires different kinds of help to break free from the cycle of welfare. One of the most biting stories illustrating the complete absurdity of the system involves a young married couple named the Millers. The Millers work hard, pay their bills, and do everything they are supposed to do in order to stay ahead. The woman gets pregnant with her second child and he is born pre-mature. The baby requires months of intensive medical care in order to survive. The bills pile up and, even though the parents have health insurance, the policy is going to run out. If the insurance company cuts them off, the baby is likely to die. So the young couple, proud, self-sufficient Americans, swallow their pride and apply for Medicaid. The man at the welfare office listens to the story, then coldly lays out their options, “The way I see it,” he says, “You basically have three alternatives. One, get a divorce, and welfare will pick up Medicaid. Two, spend down to the poverty level. Three give the child up to the state. Put him in a nursing home or institution.” In light of the big picture, every option is ridiculous. It is a terrible idea to break up a family, especially one that has been the through the trauma the Millers have experienced. And spend down to the poverty level? This would only serve to trap the family in the cycle of welfare, not help them get through their ordeal and on with their lives. In this example, Freedman reveals the basic problem he sees with welfare. It is structured so broadly, that it breaks down whenever an anomalous case pops up. The system is designed to help people who are hurting, but in the case of the Millers it had to hurt them before it could help him. Olasky agrees that the system hurts people, but he puts a decidedly different spin on how to solve the problem.

Marvin Olasky is a conservative Christian. He looks back at the America of the past and idealizes it as a time more Christian and, in his words, more compassionate then the modern version. Olasky frequently quotes and refers to men who were gritty, hardheaded and pragmatic. Men like Cotton Mathers, one of the early American Puritans who said of those who do not work, “don’t nourish ‘em and harden ‘em in that, but find employment for them. Find ‘em work; set ‘em to work; keep ‘em to work.” And that is basically Olasky’s approach. The modern welfare system, he believes, fails the poor because it hands them aid without requiring anything in return. This practice of giving handouts debases the recipient and makes him feel entitled to aid. Olasky supports his argument by quoting Franklin Roosevelt: “When any man or woman goes on a dole something happens to them mentally and the quicker they are taken off the dole the better it is for them the rest of their lives.” For this reason Olasky perceives welfare as encouraging people to be slothful and dependent. Because the welfare state requires nothing in return, Olasky argues, it receives nothing in return.

Olasky cites nineteenth century charitable organizations as models for overcoming this problem. They helped those who were truly in need such as the disabled, widows, especially disabled widows. Others who were simply idle but still able were put in work homes were they were made to labor. “Punishment for refusal to work and continued alcoholism could include whipping,” Olasky writes of these work homes, “But enforcing work among the able-bodied was not seen as oppressive. The objective was to treat all as human beings, as members of the community with responsibilities, rather than as animals.” Olasky makes clear using a whip to motivate a man is treatment that ennobles his humanity and saves him from animal debasement. In addition to workhouses, Olasky cites orphanages as bastions of eighteenth century enlightenment and even looks back nostalgically at the practice of parents loaning “older kids” out to farms so that the kids could earn their bread.

Olasky’s solution for the modern problem in welfare is simple, less money, more work. He would like to transfer the responsibility from government to churches, neighborhoods and families. These groups would then be able to use discrimination in choosing who deserves the money and serve society better by giving to those who deserve and refusing those who do not. These programs would also be better positioned to persuade their beneficiaries to refrain from negative behavior through refusing them food, threatening to cast them out or truly casting them out. Olasky also has some ingenious plans for how to put the masses of homeless to work. “Thousands of crack babies, born addicted to cocaine and often deserted by their mothers who care only for the next high, languish in hospitals,” Olasky writes. “Why shouldn’t the homeless women and men who are healthy and gentle be assigned to hold a baby for an hour in exchange for a meal?” This is a truly novel idea, one that solves two problems at once even. Freedman also offers an approach to dealing with the problem of crack babies.

Freedman tells the story of a woman named Kenya. Kenya was addicted to crack cocaine and had already lost one child due to her addiction. When she became pregnant a second time she enrolled in a program called Options. Options was an experimental program designed to help expectant mothers stay clean. The program involved intensive intervention by the program director and the other women in Kenya’s life. They confronted and comforted her. They forced Kenya to be honest with herself and with others. They forced her to face herself and her future and empowered her to take control of both. In the end, the program worked. This is just the sort of program and approach Freedman would like to see more of. It is focused and effective. It doesn’t try to force people into broad categories or make them hurt themselves in order to receive help. And it’s cheap. Compared to the cost of caring for a crack baby and having Kenya on welfare, this one intensive program will wind up saving the state money.

In both cases, Freedman and Olasky find very deep problems in the welfare system. Their solutions are somewhat similar; in that they both advocate more direct intervention in recipients lives instead of simple handouts. But Olasky’s approach is frightening. He sees things in simple black and white terms. He portrays welfare recipients again and again as lazy and manipulative. He accuses welfare mothers of not just being poor, but also of being bad mothers. Solving the issue, in his opinion, requires severe “compassion.” You shouldn’t simply solve the person’s problem, you should solve society’s problem with the person. The problem is they don’t work, they don’t contribute, they leach and they suck on everyone else. He uses images such as the whip and the pit as examples of how such people can be dealt with. He doesn’t recognize society has changed. That church and neighborhood and family won’t work in a society where church is no longer government, people hardly know their neighbors, and families live thousands of miles apart from one another.

Freedman, on the other hand presents some very intriguing ideas. It is difficult to imagine how one would transform the massive bureaucratic beast that is modern welfare into a sleek, adaptive and personalized system. Thankfully, people care, and they have innovative and effective ideas on how problems may be solved. It is possible for the state to fund individuals and groups that have good ideas, like the woman who started Options. Once the programs have proven themselves effective they can be used as models for other programs in other cities. Whatever the case, Freedman’s and Olasky’s points are well taken. The modern welfare system is inefficient and even detrimental when it comes to helping those in need, and it should be rethought.