(The following is taken from aei-ideas.org entitled “10 Things you should know about welfare reform”)
If you’re looking for 10 valuable lessons on welfare reform, AEI’s Robert Doar has them. Doar was commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) from early 2007 until the end of 2013. 
Here are Doar’s 10 lessons on how programs for the poor should be run.
1.) Always promote personal responsibility: “The minute an applicant believes that government will solve all of her problems, she loses. Accepting responsibility for one’s own future is the vital first step to moving up.” [It’s not the government’s business to make sure everyone has a job… a house… a car… health insurance… education… etc.]
2.) Employment is far better than training and education: “…study after study showed that programs that encouraged training and education over rapid employment proved less successful at getting people into jobs that lasted.” [The sooner one gets to working again, the sooner their whole attitude of life changes; they get more motivated and productive; it breaks the cycle of welfare. If the government gives somebody money, that somebody should earn it; thus, anyone receiving welfare assistance should work for the government: libraries, picking up trash, landscaping, washing govt vehicles, food service for schools, etc.. You want $800 a month, then work 80 hours per month!]
3.) Reward work with generous work supports: “Food-stamp benefits, child-care vouchers, and public health insurance all were part of this arsenal of non-cash ‘work supports’ that we promoted in New York.” [Those that choose to work, should get the benefits… not those that choose not to work.]
4.) Be honest about the importance of married two-parent families: “Very few families with married and involved parents, both working, ever need any form of welfare.” [Thus, healthy marriages lead the family out of welfare.]
5.) Caseworkers don’t cost much; benefits do: “…in welfare the money is spent mostly on benefits to clients, not the administrative costs of the agency. Welfare-administration costs are typically less than 5 percent of a program’s total costs.”
6 .) Medicaid is where the money is: “Combined federal and state spending on Medicaid ($431 billion in 2012) is more than five times spending on food stamps and more than 25 times spending on TANF, the federal cash-welfare program. It’s important to recognize that recipients of government assistance don’t receive Medicaid spending — health-care providers do.” [Thus, Medicaid might be the main part of welfare that needs to be reformed.]
7.) Immigrants get welfare too: “On net, immigrants have been an economic boon to the city…. [But] our data showed that more than 25 percent of cash-welfare and food-stamp recipients and more than 35 percent of Medicaid recipients [in NYC] were non-citizens or children of non-citizens.” [Not sure if he is actually saying that immigration (legal or illegal) is a help to the economy. I would say that illegals should not receive regular monthly welfare support. They should be bused to a detention area near the border and then bused into a Mexican city set up for receiving returning citizens. But, in this process, make sure not to break up families, and to process them in a humane manner. If they are otherwise criminals, then hand them over to the Mexican authorities to prosecute.]
8.) Welfare recipients (and workers too) will try to “get over”: “During my seven years at HRA, we had scandals involving child-care centers that had no children, welfare workers who gave themselves food-stamp benefits, [etc.]… I recruited and hired a former federal prosecutor and nationally renowned expert in Medicaid fraud to serve as our agency’s chief integrity officer…and I was still worried.” [Thus, there is plenty of fraud to be weened out of the system. Anything this big has got to have excesses, errors, and out-right criminal fraud. So, some monies need to be spent on ‘policing’ the system.]
9.) When it comes to the disabled, trust but verify: “…we set up a whole separate (and, yes, bureaucratic) process for welfare applicants who claimed they could not work because of some physical or mental condition…. The goal was to be sure they truly could not work before shunting them off to the federal disability program.” [In Washington state, DSHS will typically send them to a medical provider to have a physical done to see if what they are saying has any objective evidence. If not, then they shouldn’t be put in the SSI category.]
10.) Always cheer for the economy: “…as proud as I was of what our social-service programs provided to poor New Yorkers, I never forgot that perhaps the most important key to helping struggling families was a vibrant economy that offered an abundance of entry-level jobs. That’s why I was always first in line to support and encourage every kind of thoughtful economic-development idea that promised job creation.” [This is the heart of Capitalism, as I understand it. Let Capitalism flourish and watch welfare disappear.]
(The following is taken from an article by Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries)
Since 1965, American taxpayers have been forced to pay $5 trillion into a welfare system created to end poverty. The result? No measurable reduction in poverty. After three decades of Great Society programs to fight the war on poverty, poverty and families are doing worse.
Liberals argue for more effective programs and for additional job training. Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that the intractable pathologies of the welfare system (the destruction of the family unit and the fostering of dependency) are due to large-scale governmental intervention.
Charles Murray said, “We tried to provide more for the poor and produced more poor instead. We tried to remove the barriers to escape from poverty and inadvertently built a trap.”
“Millions of our underclass are so old, so ill, so retarded, so addicted to drugs or alcohol, or so immune to self-discipline that they can never be productive citizens. But we cannot abandon them; we must be humane while maintaining order.” (“Is the Welfare Problem Solvable?” by Ralph Lynn)
The welfare system was designed to assist when there was no father. But the system effectively eliminated the father entirely by tying payments to his absence.
An irresponsible man can father a child without worrying about how to provide for the child. And a dedicated father with a low-paying job may feel forced to leave home so his children can qualify for more benefits. Eventually the welfare system eliminated the need for families to take any economic initiative by rewarding single parents and penalizing married couples. The result has been an illegitimate birth rate for black women of 88 percent.
Half of the poor live in female-headed households. And welfare has not improved their lot. The poverty level has remained relatively unchanged since that time [(1960s)], while illegitimate births have increased more than 400 percent. In the 1960s we declared war on poverty, and poverty won.
The most rapid rise in poverty rates have been among the children the system was designed to help. This astonishing increase of illegitimate births is a principal reason for poverty and the perpetuation of a poverty cycle of “children raising children.”
The current welfare system rewards dependency and punishes initiative. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work, and provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.
Illegitimacy is the underlying cause of poverty, crime, and social meltdown in the inner cities. Proponents of these more radical proposals believe it is better to stem the tide of illegitimacy than trying to build a dam of social programs to try to contain the flood of problems later on.
Nearly a third of American children are born out of wedlock, and those children are four times more likely to be poor. And the connection between illegitimacy and crime is also disturbing. More than half the juvenile offenders serving prison time were raised by only one parent. If birth rates continue, the number of young people trapped in poverty and tempted by the values of the street will increase. Illegitimacy is essentially a ticking crime bomb.
Welfare is supposed to be a second chance, not a way of life, but tell that to some children who represent the fourth generation on welfare. Proponents of these radical reforms believe we must scrap the current system.
“No program lasting less than a generation or more has any chance of being really effective.” (Ralph Lynn)
One 1990 study of New York welfare recipients found that 63 percent of black recipients and 54 percent of whites have received training while on welfare, but few left the rolls for employment. Even with the training, less than 8 percent of blacks and 5 percent of white recipients were working.
Biblical Principles
The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. Christians may disagree about how much is necessary and who should receive help, but there should be no disagreement among Christians about our duty to help the poor since we are directly commanded to do so. Let’s then, look at two important questions.
First, who should help the poor? The Bible clearly states that the primary agent of compassionate distribution of food and resources should be the church. Unfortunately, the majority of poverty programs in existence today are government programs or governmentally sponsored programs. While we can applaud the excellent programs established by various churches and Christian organizations, we must lament that most poverty programs are instituted by the state.
Poverty is much more than an economic problem. It results from psychological, social, and spiritual problems. Government agencies, by their very nature, cannot meet these needs. The church must take a much greater role in helping the poor and not be content to allow the government to be the primary agency for welfare.
A second important question is who should we help? Government programs help nearly everyone who falls below the poverty line, but the Bible establishes more specific qualifications. A biblical system of welfare must apply some sort of means test to those who are potential recipients of welfare. Here are three biblical qualifications for those who should receive welfare.
First, they must be poor. They should not be able to meet basic human needs [(food, shelter, clothing)]. We should help those who have suffered misfortune or persecution, but the Bible does not instruct us to give to just anyone who asks for help or to those who are merely trying to improve their comfort or lifestyle.
Second, they must be diligent. Some people are poor because of laziness, neglect, or gluttony. Christians are instructed to admonish laziness and poor habits like drinking, drugs, or even laziness that lead to poverty. Proverbs [6] says, 6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: 7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, 8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. 9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? 10 Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: 11 So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.
The Apostle Paul more pointedly says, 2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Lazy people should not be rewarded by welfare, but rather encouraged to change their ways.
“We must then arrange carefully regulated projects of cooperative corporation/government enterprises to furnish employment to millions of people with no work experience and little self-discipline.
The aim should be to use government financing and supervision only until the new inner-city enterprises are established, competitive businesses.
Nothing builds self-respect and responsible citizenship like the experience of making one’s own way as a productive person working in a competitive business. “An honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” is not to be despised. It will solve more social problems than all our elaborate, overlapping social service machinery.” ( Ralph Lynn)
Third, the church must provide for those thrown into poverty because of the death of the family provider. The Bible commands us to provide for widows and orphans who are in need. Paul wrote to Timothy that a widow who was 60 years or older whose only husband has died was qualified to be supported by the church. [Thus, if there is an able bodied close male relative (son, brother, father), then they should take care of the family’s needs. Though, it may be that this admonition only applies when the male relative is a fellow believer…for the church has no jurisdiction over the lost.]
(The following is taken from an article by Seth Payne entitled “Can a true Christian oppose social welfare?”
It would seem that Jesus was very much in favor of wealth redistribution. When asked what, in addition to keeping the 10 commandments, a young man could do to be “perfect”, Jesus answered:
Matt 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Many other verses could be cited wherein Jesus counsels his followers [(not the heathen citizens)] to give up earthly possessions and focus on heavenly gifts by serving the poor, the widowed, the sick, and the hungry. Famously, Jesus taught in parable:
Matt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Given these verses, and others like it, how can one who claims to follow Christ not support governmental wealth redistribution to aid the poor, widowed, sick, and hungry?
First, we must understand that a conservative Christian does not judge the merits of a given social welfare policy based solely on the admonitions of Jesus. The teachings of Jesus are not meant as guides for social policy and to reduce them to such is to deny the true power of charity these teachings represent.
Christian discipleship is about choice. Indeed, the very salvific act of Christianity is the choice to follow Jesus. The early disciples simply followed Jesus in response to a simple invitation: “come, follow me.” This choice becomes irrelevant if one is compelled to choose Jesus and follow his commands. It is the voluntary and uncompelled choice to follow Christ that lies at the very heart of Christian faith.
So let’s examine social welfare or wealth redistribution strictly from this vantage point. If we accept that it is the choice to follow Jesus, made without compulsion or coercion, [then compulsatory ‘giving’ to the poor would be against scripture.]
First, wealth redistribution is compelled through taxation. As such, Christians and non-Christians alike have portions of their income given to the 
needy in various forms of social welfare programs. Because neither Christian nor non-Christian have any choice in the matter, there is little moral value in this transfer of wealth. Conversely, the Christian who voluntarily and with absolutely no compulsion chooses to give a portion of their income to the poor is directly answering Jesus’ call. Being “good” when you are forced to be “good” doesn’t seem to mesh well with the core of Christian faith. Compelled faith and obedience to the teachings of Jesus is hollow.
Second, it is morally reprehensible to force one set of religious values upon persons who may not hold those values, are of a different faith, or have no faith whatsoever. Just as social liberals (of which I am one) don’t want the government coming into the bedrooms of gay and lesbian couples, likewise, conservative Christians don’t want the government to dictate how and when they choose to follow their faith. Not to mention that if we base social welfare programs on Christian teaching how can we, in good conscious and with the 1st amendment in mind, force non-Christians to accept our particular moral viewpoint.
The question, then, is not whether or not Christians should help the poor and needy. They must! However, this is a completely separate question from the prudence of social welfare policy. If a conservative Christian opposes the expansion of food stamps, perhaps he is doing so because he would rather give that money to a local orphanage where he volunteers from time-to-time. She may recognize that compelled choice is no choice at all.
There are, of course, policy wonks who can, and will, argue the economic merits of social welfare. I have heard compelling arguments on both sides and tend to believe that social safety nets are economically valuable and necessary in an industrialized economy. But while such safety nets are essential, they must be managed with care.
So when considering questions of social welfare I think it is probably best to leave Jesus out of it. The New Testament is not a treatise on domestic policy. It is an admonition for individuals to follow Christ which, in large part, involves caring for the poor, sick, hungry, and needy. All Christians, left, right, and center, agree that caring for the poor is an essential Christian duty. No Christian should be faulted for expressing skepticism about social welfare and wealth redistribution being the appropriate means to fulfill this duty.