Even more bizarre is the author's denigration of professional social work. Perhaps it's true that we give less personal attention to the poor today, but that's why we have social workers. Olasky mistakes the cure for the disease. Perhaps, for Olasky and the conservatives who have embraced his book, the first step is admitting that we really don't have a problem. Olasky, in other words, has it backwards.
Public generosity aids private generosity, and vice versa.
And rather than liberating charity, the Republican welfare plan is likely to cripple it. Charity has never been well suited to providing a basic safety net for the poor. It is insufficient, particularistic, paternalistic, and amateur. Olasky may consider paternalism a virtue rather than a weakness, but he fails to address the inherent weakness of vesting all control of the resources spent on the poor with the wealthier Americans who donate to private charity. Olasky is correct that this power enables private charities to emphasize religion more than welfare or government-aided charity, but it is simply inconsistent with our nation's political traditions to insist as public policy that the poor's receipt of aid be contingent upon their acceptance of religious guidance.