Government assistance hurts compassionate, faith-based programs in Missouri | Opinion
In 1887, President Grover Cleveland vetoed a federal aid package, the Texas Seed Bill, because government aid “encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and … prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
Of all the places in the United States that might lose such “kindly sentiment and conduct,” I thought my state of Missouri would be the last. Sadly, it too is complicit in weakening our state’s bonds of brotherhood.
A case in point: In early 2023, Clark was struggling with uncontrolled diabetes when he found help from a private, faith-based medical clinic that catered to the uninsured. In thoughts shared last August on social media, he said, “They treated me like a real person, not looking down on me.” Not long after, my wife and I began supporting this compassion-driven ministry. Sadly, a few months ago their development director called to say they were “pivoting away from a medical clinic to a counseling clinic because when we refer our uninsured patients for tests, they end up connected to Medicaid and simply don’t need our services anymore.”
Over the last three years, Medicaid expansion in Missouri has resulted in a 27% increase in enrollment. While the cost of providing government health care to an additional 300,000 people has been much lamented, I’ve yet to hear an equal outcry that it’s crowding out civil society’s good work — in other words, that “kindly sentiment and conduct” that connects people like Clark to something they need every bit as much as a service: relationships and hope.
And Missouri isn’t finished. Implementation of Missouri Senate Bill 82, signed into law by Gov. Mike Parson last year, could begin soon. This widely supported bill is intended to reduce a “benefits cliff” for those enrolled in the TANF and SNAP cash and nutrition assistance programs. The “cliff” is the point when a benefits recipient’s earned income exceeds the benefit’s qualifying threshold, resulting in its sudden loss. S.B. 82 intends to address the problem by extending benefits even when earned income exceeds that threshold (currently 130% of the federal poverty line). The idea is to mitigate the concern about workers accepting an increase in pay for fear of losing government benefits.
That seems to make sense. But had our Missouri legislators or governor thought a little more like President Cleveland, they would have realized the total cost was too high. First, there’s the financial side of the ledger: The fiscal note for this well-intended expansion will likely cost Missourians an additional $180 million to $220 million per year in taxes.
Then there’s the loss of community commitment and relationships vital to the long-term success of those in need. Take my southwest county of Jasper, for example. We coordinate a collaborative effort among more than 30 poverty-fighting nonprofits. Last year, 1110 households receiving food assistance came through the doors of one of those local organizations. One hundred thirty-six had at least one employed adult and sought food assistance an average of four times per year.
One of those households is Angela’s. Over time, we’ve built a relationship with her and her two boys. She has told us, “The biggest difference is I don’t have to do it alone.” Indeed, we’ve heard hundreds of people over the years share the importance of relationships on the journey out of poverty.
I hope Clark doesn’t end up alone. Because of the state’s actions, he no longer has access to a faith-based medical clinic staffed with compassionate volunteers. When S.B. 82 is fully implemented, extending benefits up to households making 225% of the poverty line, other faith-based, compassion-driven ministries will see a drop in those coming to them for care and be forced to close. That will come at a great cost to people like Clark and Angela. Moreover, relying on government more than “the friendliness and charity of our countrymen” will, as Grover Cleveland rightly pointed out, weaken the sturdiness of our state’s character.