In a time where a citizen’s 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 of 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 identify 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, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 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 the welfare system is run, will it someday become a worldwide crutch?
When looking for potential cases to present in this paper, I came across an article that is more than infuriating to read by a working class citizen. In the fall of 2013, a radio station in Austin, Texas, KLBJ, held a discussion about welfare. They went on to say that with the federal programs provided today, people were coming to expect free money from the government. In the heat of discussion, they received a phone call from a listener. The listener introduced herself as Lucy, a thirty two year old wife and mother, who felt that she was being antagonized for living off of the government. She went on to explain that she lives on welfare and has found no reason to stop. Although she is perfectly capable of working, she personally receives over $1,200 a month in federal assistance and does not see any logical reason to put herself to work and says that she has no desire to contribute to society. With welfare, she is able stay home all day, spend time with her friends to smoke marijuana, and still get paid without going through strenuous labor. “As if this wasn’t audacious enough, Lucy said she’s disgusted by people who think she’s a bad person for living off tax dollars. She views working class people as idiots, even, because they work only to receive what she already has. She asked the radio hosts why she should work when she receives everything she needs for free. Lucy expects to be on welfare for the rest of her life, just like her parents.” (Erin). It is this mindset exactly that has created a major problem with how the welfare system is run today. Lucy was brought up with the mentality that the government will support those who are not willing to contribute to society and with this being passed down from her parents, the possibility that this mindset will be passed on from generation to generation in this particular family is unsettlingly high. It is cases such as this that makes the working class wonder why the government is being so incredibly lenient with where our money is going. We need to remember what this system was originally intended for and take action!
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?
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, was launched on December 12, 1999 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 and 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 TANF 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 mindset 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 motivate one another and teach our children the value of money and a good work ethic 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). The concept of charity work replacing welfare did not go into great depths as to how it would benefit the recipients directly, but I would imagine the concept would be one of two ideas: being paid for working hand and hand with the charity organization and/or being able to take what they need to live sufficiently from the donations they receive. 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.
For my final suggestion, 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 in liquor stores, sports bars, and other such luxuries, I think they should either be cut from the program entirely or lower the amount they receive. I know that this would spark controversy 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 controversial 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 and back on track!
Work Cited Page
Erin, Adrienne. “Welfare Abuse Still a Serious Problem in the United States.” Western Journalism. N.p., 08 May 2014. Web. 07 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.