President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty got some things right and has had some important successes. But it got at least one thing very wrong—a mistake still haunting us today.

Freedom of speech and religion are protected by federal authority through explicit language in the Constitution. Minimum income and health care, in contrast, are not constitutional rights, and they do not enjoy the same kind of protection.

Today, the federal role in antipoverty policies is huge but uneven. Vast federal spending and the coercive powers that come with it give federal officials a decisive influence over antipoverty policy in every state. Medicaid, food stamp benefits—now renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—the earned income tax credit, disability assistance, cash welfare, child support enforcement, child care, and housing all, to varying degrees, involve significant federal involvement in the lives of citizens in every state.

Bottom line: We're raising enrollment but not improving outcomes. It's the opposite of success. Increased enrollment without improved outcomes is losing the battle and the war.

The goal of welfare is to help people become independent, not more dependent.

President Trump wants to move more authority to the states. The administration is encouraging states to ask for relief from federal authority in Medicaid and SNAP, and many people in the states—from both parties—appear to want to take on more responsibility, so long as there is adequate funding.

Read the full article on the welfare system by Robert Doar at American Enterprise Institute