"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime." As with many maxims, there's a lot of truth in that, and it clearly illustrates a dichotomy at the heart of today's debate over welfare.

It also sheds light on another welfare issue: kindness versus cruelty. In the short run, it may seem kinder to give a man a fish than to expect him to become a fisherman. Yet in the long run, teaching him to fish is much kinder, as you will have given him charge of his own life. My calling you a "reptilian bastard" for taking the long-term view would be, well, unkind, to say nothing of untrue.

Of course, that hasn't stopped some of the opponents of welfare reform. Over the past year or so, conservative welfare reformers have faced unbelievable scorn, from the "reptilian bastards" line to Sam Gibbons' description of them as Nazi troopers. One po or soul (and he's lucky I can't recall his name) called Newt Gingrich a "monster," and when reminded that Gingrich was at least a human being, flatly denied even that.

Even in less hysterical contexts, the charge of cruelty is everywhere, as if reforming welfare - or even wishing to reform welfare - amounted to a "War on the Poor." A good look at the current system, though, shows that all is definitely not well, that we lfare may be doing much more harm than good, and that drastic reform may be by far the kindest thing to do. Rather than writing the necessary book, I will touch on a few points. In what follows, I address only cash programs such as Aid to Families with De pendent Children and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Welfare was meant to be temporary, a short boost to get the fallen back on their feet. In practice today, though, it is often permanent, with few strings attached. This sends a very clear message: You need not work, marry, or take responsibility, since th e government will care for you. The message - which is a hard fact - directly undermines the work ethic, self-reliance, familial support networks (why bother? Uncle Sam will do it), and the two-parent family.

How does this hurt people, particularly poor people? Illegitimacy is probably the worst part of it, as raising a child alone is extraordinarily difficult. "As the 1991 Rockefeller Commission on Children acknowledged, a family headed by a single female is six times more likely to be poor than a two-parent family" (Reader's Digest, March 1994, p. 50). There is a great self-confidence that comes from doing a job well and taking responsibility, but welfare removes the incentive to find that confidence.

Cash welfare payments can also fuel destructive habits by underwriting their cost. SSI, in particular, perpetuates drug addiction and alcoholism through its perverse incentives. (Once you're off drugs and booze, you no longer qualify for the program.) See Reader's Digest, August 1994, for an extensive report.

Overall, it should be clear that something is very wrong with recent efforts to combat poverty. We have spent over $1,000,000,000,000,000 on "Great Society" programs like cash welfare, and yet inner-city illegitimacy has hit 80 percent, children grow up with no moral guidance at all, and those that reach adulthood often go straight onto the same welfare dole that their parents used. It is at least highly plausible that the welfare system is the cause, due to the powerful incentive it provides not to work , not to care for others (if welfare is a right, then charity is pointless), not to care for oneself.

With all the evidence available to support this theory, I do not find it "cruel" to call for serious reform. I do not find it "heartless" to call for "the complete abolition of welfare" as Eloise Anderson has done (National Review, Jan. 29, 1996). I do no t find it "mean-spirited" to tell those on welfare that they do not need the government, that with some help from families and churches, they can take care of themselves.

The real cruelty is to defend a system that destroys those it should be helping. Let me make it quite clear that I am not attacking welfare recipients. I am attacking the system, a system that corrupts good people. The entitlement to cash welfare may seem kind in the short run. But in the large, long-term, societal picture, I am convinced that it, not Newt, is the monster.

Socialists! Educate yourselves! John Keisling's new book, a collection of his 54 Wildcat columns plus nine others, is available from the author, a math Ph.D. candidate. Please e-mail keisl@math.arizona.edu or call 325-0351.