THE WORD FOR THE DAY IS J

THE WORD FOR THE DAY IS J.O.B.

Complicated issue? Indeed it is. Welfare recipients are merely pawns at the mercy of the major players that include Congress and the White House. While the tug-of-war battle wages on there is the struggle to balance spending at the same continue care to eligible families and satisfy the millions of critics who are searching for someone to blame. Let’s begin by addressing the amendment to the 1996 legislature under former President Bill Clinton. This exciting package includes:

Earned Income Tax Credit proving supplements up to $4,000 annually to single parents abandoning the welfare system for work.

$22 Billion annual Federal commitment to cash welfare, work preparation and childcare through the Temporary Assistance for needy families and childcare and development block grants.

The current high level spending for childcare maintains the commitment to providing health insurance to children of low-income working families while expanding the child support enforcement program so that more payment will be given directly to the mother and children.
Promotes health marriages to continue to reduce children born out of wedlock.

Federal policy continuing 5-year ban on most welfare benefits for legal immigrants and permanent ban on food stamps and Supplemental Security Income. Policy will also be balanced between the needs of poor immigrants and obligation to ensure that welfare policy neither attracts noncitizens to the U.S. to take advantage of welfare programs nor induces dependency among immigrants who receive benefits.

Will this newly updated policy work? Does it satisfy spending critics? Is there a perfect system? Will the system ever satisfy anyone? No! No! No! Maybe! It all boils down to spending versus program improvements.

This issue sparked a debate between a colleague and myself. So it is only right that I allow him to play the Devil’s Advocate with this issue. I simply asked if he agreed with the current Welfare Reform Bill and his response was this:

"The old system stunk and this new one is no better. Consider this; the current system offers uneducated or undereducated individuals an opportunity to join the workforce in the lowest class of society. These individuals are often left at the whim of employers when it comes to insurance and retirement funds."

Wait! I have a question. Is this not the reason for the program? Obviously college was not an option for these individuals due to COST maybe! So the government is giving at least a ray of hope, right? The program offers a chance to live productive and work towards self- support, right? This is the program’s objective. Well he goes on to point out the fact that once the individual is booted off the taxpayer payroll that the individual is faced to foot the bill himself. I guess you would call that, uh, RESPONSIBILTY! When asked if getting individuals to support themselves he offers a very good point:

"The government has just given themselves another low income person to provide not only an income for itself, but also a laborer for its rich supporters."

Finally he has a point. Billions of dollars are drained into Welfare Reform. In no way shape or form do the welfare recipients get any of that money that is drained into programs for these individuals to help themselves. Wait, now I have a point. Why should these people receive money when these programs are here to help them? The objective is to get them off of the taxpayers payroll. Who cares if it is some great political strategic move? Robert Rector, senior analyst for family and welfare issues for the Heritage Foundation notes in his article, "How to reform Welfare". He made some strong points. See I have a problem with individuals abusing the "system". I have seen individuals selling food stamps and WIC vouchers for paper money and various illegal drugs. I have also seen individuals collecting assistance in a state that gives more assistance while residing in another state or area that is low income (self-made hundred-aires). He notes that the recipients should take a more active role in the system if they are going to collect our goods. Consider this:

The law requiring mothers on AFDC to identify the father of their children, routinely ignored by welfare workers, should be enforced. Modern DNA testing permits determination of a child's father beyond a shadow of doubt. Once paternity is determined, fathers should be required to pay child support to offset welfare costs. If a father claimed that he could not pay, the government could require him to perform community service (the latter will abolish the dead bead dad campaign – what man chooses not to support his child – oops, I know, my own father)

Establish serious workfare. Previous welfare "reforms," including President Clinton's recent proposal, have talked about workfare without requiring many people to work. Work requirements should be imposed first on able-bodied, non-elderly, single persons on welfare, followed by fathers in two-parent families and absent fathers who fail to pay child support. All able-bodied persons in the AFDC-UP and Food Stamp programs and half of all single mothers on AFDC -- those whose children are school age -should have to work for their benefits

Limit welfare benefits to unwed teenage mothers. Welfare makes it possible for young, unmarried women to have children and set up house as single parents. This is another reason welfare costs are skyrocketing. The welfare rolls increase geometrically year by year because many welfare children grow up to do the same thing their mothers did. This must stop… (The rest of his comment did not support my theory)

Instead of paying money directly to unwed teenage mothers, the money they would have received through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps should be given to the states. States could develop programs to assist teenage mothers, including promoting adoption, orphanages or assisting young mothers in tightly supervised group homes. Since other families don't receive increased income when they have additional children, neither should women on AFDC and/or Food Stamps. Eventually, direct federal payments to unwed mothers of all ages should be eliminated, so there is no longer a government reward for having children out of wedlock.

With his remarks I conclude. People need to start taking responsibility of their own lives. Use the government systems as a crutch and not as a way of life. Churches, families, fathers can all contribute to eliminate this growing ongoing trend. Ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for yourself.