In a time where a countries dependency on its government increases, the incentive to work drastically declines. Welfare began long before the government welfare programs we know were created and were intended to lend a helping hand to families in need. But what happens when a system designed to help families in genuine need of assistance becomes a long-term way of life to those who are more than capable in finding a steady career? It comes as no surprise that a decent percentage of those receiving assistance from the government are in fact not in need at all. Certainly, there is no way to weave out those who are falsely claiming they are in need without causing much controversy, but I propose a series of possible solutions. I propose that we strongly consider the reissuing of the TANF fund to issue jobs to those who are genuinely trying to find their way out of poverty, consider making charity work a requirement for those who apply for assistance, regulate EBT more efficiently and make it a requirement to those collecting to be drug tested. If we do not make modifications to how we run our welfare system, how will we ever thrive?
People are much too reliant on government assistance and I think it is time to make a big change in a big way. Before researching this topic, my main question was simply, “why haven’t we created a system in which we help those who apply for assistance to find a job?” To my surprise, there was a system that helped those in need find jobs, TANF. TANF, also known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Emergency Funds, had created nearly 250,000 jobs. “Support for the program is widespread and crosses political lines. Mayors of big cities like Philadelphia, Providence, R.I., and San Francisco, as well as governors in large and small states agree that this is a stimulus program that succeeds in creating jobs. The TANF Emergency Fund helps states encourage private hiring by reimbursing 80 percent of the costs of subsidizing new employment. The program targets low-income workers with children but is not limited to those receiving temporary assistance benefits. Thirty-five states have drawn more than a billion dollars from the fund, opening employment doors for a quarter-million Americans—including adults and some young people hired through summer youth programs.” (Owens, Christine L., and George Wentworth). At least fifty percent of eligible welfare recipients from single parent families were required to be enrolled into work activities, as for two-parent families, the requirement was for ninety percent. According to statistics provided by Michael Tanner and Tad DeHaven, “After all the credits, waivers, and exemptions are taken into account, only 32 percent of welfare recipients were working in 2009. While this is low, it does represent a substantial improvement over pre-reform welfare. Under the old AFDC program, only about 10 percent of recipients were working.” (Tanner, DeHaven). While many were participating in “work activities” under welfare, a great percentage of those participants were not in fact working, but were still collecting. “The work component of welfare reform was a big step in the right direction, but the actual changes to work behavior have been modest.” (Tanner, DeHaven). Due to these statistics, the fund expired September 30, 2010, leaving many participants in fact unemployed once again. In my personal opinion, I think we should reinstate a program such as TANF, but enforce stricter requirements, or maybe even attempt to give a bigger incentive to work. The mind set of many Americans today is that if they are collecting checks from the government while not lifting a finger, what is the sense in searching for a job? We need to break that mind set before we initially implode on ourselves. We need to put America back to work!
An interesting concept that I stumbled upon in my research was replacing welfare with private charity work. An unknown source speaks of a brilliant point made by Michael Tanner, an author and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and Tad DeHaven, budget analyst for the Cato Institute, in the article, “Private Charity Should Replace Welfare,” they contend that private charities are more helpful to low-income families and individuals than government welfare programs. Tanner and DeHaven argue that private aid organizations understand that true charity starts with the understanding that people must develop self sufficiency and make wise life choices, and should not simply be handed a check every month. The authors maintain that private charities are better equipped to provide individualized aid and adjust eligibility standards to meet specific needs. In addition, they state that private charities are more efficient than government aid programs, so more of the donated funds can be used to benefit the recipients directly.” (Private Charity Should Replace Welfare). Welfare is great for temporary assistance, but many make it a long-term commitment and soon lose all incentive to work. With charity work, they are required to work for what they receive and on top of gaining work experience under their belt, they are exposed to a handful of people who are potentially in the same position that they are, whether it be financial or so on and so forth. With being exposed to others that share similar experiences, they might be able to share how they got themselves out of poverty and created a better life for themselves. Overall, I think charity work would benefit individuals in more ways than one. It certainly will not be for everybody, but for a select few it may be just what they need.
While searching for an example to present in my paper, I recently stumbled upon an article of a Kent woman asking taxpayers for a grand request, to fund her ten thousand dollar dream wedding, not to mention another two thousand dollars to fly her and her husband to Mexico for a beautiful honeymoon. Anne Broom, of Gillingham, has been unemployed since the age of nineteen and has since collected more than £100,000 in benefits. Miss Broom left school at the age of sixteen and worked as a nursery nurse for two years until she was so called, “overlooked” for a secretarial position by a ‘skinny blonde’. She later applied for several jobs without success and found her comfort in food. She is now thirty-three and still unemployed due to the fact that she was deemed unfit to work with depression and back pain due to her excessive weight. After thirteen years of collecting benefits from the government, “The Gillingham resident claims it is her ‘basic human right’ to be a bride and says that tying the knot would boost her fragile confidence and encourage her to try and find a job again. Miss Broom receives monthly benefits including £460 disability living allowance and joint £200 housing benefit with fiancé Jordan Burford, 39, who also gets £134 income support a month. The size 24 bride-to-be said: ‘I’ve dreamed about being a bride since I was 12 years old. ‘I deserve a fairy-tale church wedding and a party in a castle – but there’s no way I could afford it on benefits and I can’t work because I’m overweight.'” (Burrows). In her grand request, she asks for a designer dress, designer shoes, a horse and carriage to arrive in, champagne for her fifty guests, prawn canapes, 5-tier cake, and a big band to play them off into their happy marriage. “She added: ‘I want the taxpayer to fund my £10,000 dream wedding – it’s a basic human right to be a bride. I don’t see why I should have a small wedding at a registry office – I wouldn’t be able to fit in all my guests and a church wedding is far more romantic. I’m stuck in a rut at the moment and can’t find the motivation to lose weight, but if I was getting married I know I’d slim down because all eyes would be on me.’ ” (Burrows). I’m sorry, but absolutely not. Is it your right to be a bride? Absolutely, I think everyone could agree. Should the government fund your dream wedding? Absolutely not. If this wedding has been your dream since you were a twelve year old girl as you claim, I see that as being your motivation to lose enough weight where you are able to work and save up the money yourself. It is not the government’s obligation to fund your wedding. This is a perfect example of people abusing the system. Welfare was meant to help families in distress who just did not have enough to put a sufficient amount of food on the table to feed their families or to just simply survive, it was never intended to fund lavish dreams and desires. To some, I do not believe they understand the sole purpose of the welfare system. It is not intended to fund our everyday lives and to give to those who do not have the ambition to make a career for ourselves. I believe it is collectors such as Miss Broom and those who abuse the system such as she does, to be taken off or cut down on their allowance.
I recently took to social media to see where those around me stood on the issue. Miss Brielle Gilmore believes that we should “regulate EBT more efficiently.” As a local grocery store cashier, Miss Gilmore witnesses countless accounts of people abusing their ebt cards. Instead of buying healthy food and for necessity, many customers purchase “food” such as Sour Patch Kids, the extremely common Coca Cola, and an assortment of other processed, unhealthy foods. Abuse of the card was one of the few responses I received. I say few because a large majority of my eight responders reached a unanimous response to go forth with drug testing. I, myself, am a firm believer in drug testing to receive benefits. If I need to pass a drug test in order to make money, I believe those receiving benefits should have to pass as well. Although it will cause much controversy, I believe it will make a big difference in who receives benefits!
In a recent class discussion, a disturbing conversation was brought to our attention. My psychology professor spent a considerable amount of time talking of the government, issues that we are facing in America, and the popular topic of welfare. In the discussion of welfare, he brought up a conversation that he had recently overheard of what he believes to be a mother figure and young girl. When a young girl was asked what she wanted to be when she grows up, she responded without hesitation, “I want to be welfare.” I was in disbelief that a girl with the whole world in front of her, with the potential to be whatever she wanted to be, was dead set on being on welfare. My main concern was if she was taught that welfare is an acceptable way of life, how many others have that same thought instilled in them? How many young children will grow up thinking that the government is a personal security blanket? If we don’t make a change now, will we ever?
For my final suggestion, though it may seem farfetched, I think it would be in our benefit to monitor EBT spending. I say this because I know of someone personally who spends her collection checks on miscellaneous things for not only herself, but her friends. When going out with friends, she offers to pay for coffee dates and countless other things for her entire group. As a freshman in high school, she dropped out and has since not been employed. She qualified for government assistance and has not attempted to find employment. For reasons such as this, I think it would be beneficial to monitor spending for the first six month or year to see what these collection checks are in fact going towards. If they are being used to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, and other luxuries, I think they should either be cut from the program entirely or lower the amount they receive. I know I may sound very farfetched, but watching people collect when they are perfectly capable of maintaining a job while I work two jobs to pay for everything I have is infuriating.
I am aware that in this paper I have brought up a series of good points, followed by a series of farfetched ideas. I know that I may be off base, and that is probably why I will never thrive working in government and why I do not wish to pursue a career in the government, but I believe that it is time for change. We cannot pretend that there is not a giant problem in the way the welfare system is run. Many problems are being addressed and I applaud those trying to make a difference. But many underlined problems are just being swept under the rug that I feel should be brought to light. I am not suggesting that any of these points are vital and need to be pursued as soon as tomorrow, but to be considered as strong points to keep in mind. We need to make a valid effort to make a better future for ourselves. We need to put America back to work!
Work Cited Page
– Burrows, Thomas. “Unemployed ‘bridezilla’ on Benefits Because She Is ‘too Fat to Work’ Plans Dream £10,000 Wedding with Horse-drawn Carriage and Mexico Honeymoon Funded by the Taxpayer and Claims: ‘It’s My Human Right'” Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 01 May 2015.
– Haerens, Margaret. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
– Owens, Christine L., and George Wentworth. “The TANF Emergency Fund Creates Jobs and Should Be Reauthorized.” Welfare. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “It’s Not a Recovery Without Jobs.” Politico. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
– Tanner, Michael, and Tad DeHaven. “Private Charity Should Replace Welfare.” Welfare. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “TANF and Federal Welfare.” Cato Institute. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
– Tanner, Michael, and Tad DeHaven. “TANF and Federal Welfare.” Downsizing the Federal Government. Cato Institute, Sept. 2010. Web. 01 May 2015.
– “Welfare Information.” US Welfare System. WelfareInfo.org, n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.