The Curious Case of Nadya Suleman

A few weeks ago, Nadya Suleman made national headlines for successfully giving birth to octuplets. While the medical nature of her case is astounding, it is the content of her actions that is most important politically. Consider the context: First, Ms. Suleman already has six children, three of whom are disabled, and yet chose to pursue in-vitro pregnancy. Second, given the health of her children and her own poor financial state, Ms. Suleman receives nearly $500 a month in food stamps, and thousands more in child disability and general welfare payments. This begs the question of how a woman on welfare and food stamps could afford a $15,000 elective in-vitro pregnancy, take masters classes at a local college, and have her own personal publicist. Asked this question in a recent interview with NBC, Ms. Suleman said that she had saved some of the more than $165,000 in disability welfare payments she received after being injured in a 1999 riot at a state mental hospital where she worked. Add to these costs the estimated $1.2 million hospital bill from the recent birth of her eight children, a bill which she will not be able to pay due to inadequate insurance, and there are serious questions about the integrity of the welfare system.

Nadya Suleman

Ms. Suleman’s case throws light onto the politically protected arena of welfare payments and the ideology that forms its underpinning. Most politicians shy away from criticizing the welfare system because they are afraid of seeming uncompassionate toward the poor. But this trivializes an important ideological debate: The liberal view of government believes that government is the answer for society’s problems, and should also level the playing field for all; conservatism holds that individuals should take responsibility for their actions, and that the government’s essential role is to protect personal and property rights. As such, liberalism forms the foundation for welfare, as government payments and handouts are seen as the support needed to provide for the poor and make ‘fair’ a society tilted away from the underprivileged.

“In her view these are just payments made for people with legitimate needs…She just believes that there are programs for people with needs and she and her children qualify for some of them.”

-Michael Furtney, Ms. Suleman’s personal publicist.

However, as seen in Ms. Suleman’s case, this type of support not only encourages abuse of the system, but also inefficiently and indiscriminately allocates taxpayer dollars. The statistics are staggering: Unemployment welfare rates and the unemployment rate have an almost 1:1 correlation, meaning that the more the government pays in welfare to the unemployed, the higher the unemployment rate rises. Why? Workers simply lose the incentive to return to work if they are paid not to work. This effect multiplies as the welfare rate multiplies. Then there is the wide spread case of so called “welfare queens,” or single mothers who choose to stay on welfare rather than return to work. Why? Because once a single mother gets a job, she loses her welfare payments. Even once she begins working, her welfare payments decrease as her wages increase. As a result, unless she can make over the tax free average of $750 a month, there is often no reason to find work. So who pays her bills? You and me.

Of course, there are millions of single mothers who work extremely hard to find a job and are legitimately aided by welfare, and they should be praised for their dedication to their children. The problem, however, is that cases like Ms. Suleman’s are entirely too prevalent. And, since welfare is fully funded by taxpayer dollars, it is literally our money being wasted each time a case like this arises. Wouldn’t you be upset if Ms. Suleman stole $15,000 from you to pay for her in-vitro procedure despite the fact that she already had 6 children? The problem is that welfare is spread so thinly through society, and is then redirected through the government, that the cost seems distant and impersonal. That is why Ms. Suleman’s case is so important–it brings to light the misuse and inefficiency inherent in social welfare programs and large government philosophy.

This does not mean that we should ignore the poor or turn away the downtrodden. Rather, practically, any welfare program should be directed only to those who cannot physically work. Ideologically, we must recognize that personal responsibility should always trump government support, and that indiscriminate spending of taxpayer dollars represents a fundamental violation of private property and individual rights. Otherwise, Ms. Suleman’s poor choices will continue to cost you and me.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net