In the Ward where I attend, there are welfare specialists who are social workers–precisely because most of the Ward don’t know about programs like “section 8”, “heap”, “snap”, “tanf”, “scrie”, “drie” & etc.

It seems like most middle-class members haven’t had to apply for any of these programs, so they don’t know even how to apply for them…

#2. The most reliable voters are retirees/elderly.

#3. Sweeping generalization/judgement there.

#4. Some programs are state administered.

Another observation: the church collects tithing from those on govt aid.

A coordinated combination of government and private voluntary systems of welfare seems ideal.

Even among conservatives there’s quite a bit of variance from those who are more libertarian with a desire for very minimal government to those who see more of a role (either in funding or in regulation). Typically conservatives differ from libertarians in seeing a role for government in many places.

My own view is that I think we’d do much better simply either block granting programs for the poor to the states with few strings attached or better yet by simply giving it directly to the poor in some way.

The idea of “anti-government” seems worse than a caricature unless one is already talking of a more radical group like the Bundys. Both liberals and conservatives are fond of pointing out government abuse when it fits their worldview. (Say reckless interventionism in foreign nations for a certain class of liberal who undoubtedly will be consistent in such criticisms when applied to Obama or HRC as they did Bush)

While the Church can call us to repentance in a general way, ultimately they expect us to listen and respond. Beyond the occasional quorum service project or call to come to the cannery, does the Church offer much by way of structure for service? (Other than callings of course)

That said I do worry that especially along the wasatch front there are too many of a certain leadership role drawn from upper income members. Again, I think as a practical matter this is tied up with time commitments in the modern economy. I’m not sure the best solution to this. I also think that while it’s great to have ward boundaries fit ones local communities, this means members in Utah simply don’t encounter a very diverse membership. (Unlike members in less Mormon areas)

To the broader political issue I tend to be sympathetic to the idea that people are fine with programs that benefit their group (however defined) while more skeptical of those that benefit others. That said I’m skeptical about the way you break it down. (If anything Mormons seem more inclined to be deeply skeptical of farm subsidies and other corporate grants) It’s not that I necessarily disagree with your claims, but rather I’m skeptical we know the breakdown of what Mormons actually think on these matters.

I’ve been reading the book “White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good,” and your ‘distance’ idea would seem to cover much of the same territory. You can’t just decide what somebody else needs and then try to make them accept it.

“Bishops and other local leaders are often in the middle class (if not in the wealthy class), while those who most frequently need help are in poverty. This means that local leaders don’t always understand why those in need act the way they do. This cultural distance makes solving problems of poverty difficult. So again, the question needs to be asked: what should we do about this distance?”

For starters, I’m probably one of those referred to in comment #4. But, I have an anti-big government sentiment, not anti-government sentiment. Surely the way relief to the less fortunate is administered in the US puts the maximum amount of distance between the giver and recipient. Elder Renlund’s comment encapsulates the huge problems I see (as a somewhat-informed US voter not very involved in political issues) with US government welfare programs.

1. Government welfare requires donor participation. A taxpayer cannot choose how much to contribute and may go to jail for withholding taxes out of principle. Clearly this is NOT an example of the pure love of Christ. On the other hand, donations to Church welfare are entirely voluntary.

2. Government welfare is heavily influenced by elected officials who sometimes attempt to use it for political advantage. Those who administer Church welfare locally did not seek the responsibility they have and are not looking to further their career by administering relief to the less fortunate.

3. Government welfare is administered by government employees who are often more interested in clocking out at 4pm. Church welfare is administered with large amounts of volunteer labor.

4. A bishop may be culturally removed from a recipient in his ward, but he clearly has a proximity advantage over government welfare programs formulated in Washington DC and state capitals.

My 2 cents worth…

I thought the concept was in direct opposition to the RS initiative on helping refugees.

Your concept may have some value in the US, how do you help people starving in Africa.

Old handbooks did actively discourage seeking governmental assistance. The handbooks changed in the early 90’s or late 80’s.