Truly Radical Welfare Reform
The kinds of welfare reform that are talked about among professional
politicians tinker around the edges, looking for ways to get
people off welfare or ways to cut benefits. Occasionally there
is some work element thrown in, which might encourage those who
can work to just get a job, while putting more of a burden on
those recipients who are less able to work. It can be mean-spirited
in intent, as when Republicans complain about the money going
to the poor while voting for all sorts of corporate welfare and
benefits for the rich. Perhaps the time has come for more radical
welfare reform.
Let's take a broad overview of the situation and some of the
inherent problems first. Welfare is necessary, but the system
is abused and wasteful. This has discredited it in the eyes of
many. For example, more than one hard-working person has been
annoyed by the fact that some recipients use their food stamps
to buy expensive foods. Welfare apologists suggest that this
is rare and not a big deal. It may be uncommon for recipients
to buy the best steaks and organic wheat bread, but it clearly
happens.
More importantly, what is forgotten is that not all people
making these complaints are wealthy or even in the middle class.
Many people who are annoyed by the lifestyle choices of some
welfare recipients are in part upset because, they not only work
hard to pay the taxes for those food stamps, but also feel they
cannot afford those high-end foods themselves. This appearance-of-injustice
aspect of welfare programs is only one problem with them, of
course.
Other people point out that the various programs tend to be
corrupting of character or at least produce bad habits. This
certainly can be true. I have had several friends and acquaintances
who haven't wanted to give up their easy life on welfare for
work. How could it be otherwise if the benefits are sufficient
enough for decent life without work, as they sometimes are?
I don't consider this tendency to take free money as a huge
character flaw, since at first glance it just seems human and
rational. Having such free money regularly available creates
a different set of motivations. Many middle-class people criticize
recipients for their acceptance of free money, but then they
take the free public school education offered to their children,
and the government grants that their children get for college.
They become hypocritical, in other words.
Then there are the larger fiscal issues with welfare. Can
we as a country afford all the welfare programs we have? Well,
actually, what is traditionally called welfare makes up a relatively
small part of the federal budget, but without getting too far
off track here, I have to make this clear: Social Security and
Medicare are welfare programs. There is no money set aside for
these in some fund. They are paid for out of current receipts
just like any other welfare. The supposed promise or contract
that they represent has been legally shot down by the supreme
court more than once (the government has no legal obligation
to continue payments in either program).
In any case, many in government now and in the past have promised
various other forms of welfare, so the same argument could be
made for those--that they are an obligation and not a handout.
When we also include Medicaid and other health-care payments
made by government for those who can't afford them, we can see
that welfare can get very expensive (over a trillion dollars
as of 2009).
Now let's look at an idea for welfare reform that addresses
the problems laid out above. There is a way to make the system
more fair for those who are working hard to pay for it, less
corrupting for those who benefit, and less of a burden on taxpayers.
It involves many smaller steps, along with one major change.
The big change is to make it a system of loans rather than handouts.
Continues here... A Lending
Hand - A New Kind of Welfare System
|
