Tuesday’s topic is welfare reform. This topic scares the most hardened of politicians. It is the proverbial “third rail” for any politician’s career. I might be the only one willing to ask, but, why? Why is this topic so off-limits to serious discussion? Is it that politicians are scared to offend welfare recipients or are they afraid of being “insensitive” or, is it possible that if they implement serious welfare reform, folks might not be dependent on the “entitlement programs” that politicians like to dole out as if they are doing us a favor? Let’s tackle the last hypothesis and see what we come up with, shall we?
Welfare is the all encompassing term that comprises government assistance programs such as food stamps, MEDICAID, housing assistance, unemployment, WIC vouchers, and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) which provides cash assistance to families with minimal or no income. I’d like to state, for the record, that I’m not against welfare or government assistance for those that NEED it. What I am against is the unadulterated misuse of this well-intended system by individuals who would rather have a handout than earn an honest living.  This point gets me a little angry. Have you heard the “song” “First of the Month” by Bone Thugs ‘n Harmony? It is an entire song about the arrival of the monthly welfare check. If that doesn’t upset you a little, nothing will.
In 2010, government assistance programs totaled $861 billion dollars. It is impossible to determine how much of this money is given to the undeserving versus the deserving, but it can be assumed that it’s more than a dollar or two.
Recently Florida instituted a law that required recipients to pass a drug test before benefits would be issued. A federal judge ruled this unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure). Available numbers showed that more than 7,000 recipients passed the drug screen and were given their benefits, and were reimbursed for the cost of the drug test. On the other side of the spectrum, 32 potential recipients failed, with most testing positive for marijuana. Anti-drug test advocates have pointed to this as proof that a majority of recipients are drug free. The numbers support this assertion, but I’m a glass half-full kind of person, so I see that the 32 individuals who were denied benefits freed up a little extra money to go towards those who actually needed it.
Aside from drug testing, how many recipients receive benefits for “disabilities” that prevent them from working? Are there legitimate cases where assistance should be rendered; without a doubt. Are there cases where it’s easier to sit around and collect a paycheck than go out and earn a living; most definitely. It’s these cases that degrade the entire system and project negative images of “laziness” onto those who don’t fall into that category. Unfortunately, it would be a lengthy and time-consuming process to reevaluate each and every case at the state level, and it would undoubtedly cost a hefty sum. So it seems that it is cheaper to let the status quo continue than to effect dramatic changes. Perhaps annual recertification could be a requirement to continue receiving benefits. Eventually, those who are milking the system will get caught. Unfortunately, until they ARE caught, they will still get a share of YOUR money. Until we create more jobs and reduce the amount of welfare given out in the form of unemployment benefits, our welfare spending will remain the largest portion of our federal budget.
I guess it all goes back to jobs. Without jobs, we can’t earn a decent wage, so we can’t pay taxes, so we can’t keep our deficit on a downward spiral. Let me rephrase that last statement, we can’t START our deficit on a downward spiral, there, that is much more fitting. Welfare it seems is a necessary evil as long as there are those who wish to abuse the generosity of the nation.