This week: Work or Welfare?

Congress passed, and Clinton recently signed, sweeping Welfare reform that will force many recipients to find work to make ends meet. Evidence suggests that programs necessary to support these new workers (e.g. child care, healthcare, job training, etc.) will cost America more than simply sending them a Welfare check each month. In a budget conscious era should we go with the cheaper option? Or is it more important that each person earn his or her share, even if it costs America more in the end?

For other past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Politics & Community survey is published each Thursday.

---

formicacid: Do the figures which claim that it will be more expensive to support new workers (due to child&health; care, etc) also consider that these workers will be paying taxes? Then these new workers might get higher paying jobs, thus leading to even more taxes. Could this even off the loss?

Even so, it is worth the cost to get people to work:
People whose time is occupied (in this case with work) are less likely to cause crime, Leading to a safer environment for all.
More people in the job race enable companies to be more discerning in who they hire, which can equal better products/services for the consumer.
Seeing their parents work may send a message to children that you must work to live, rather than learning that Uncle Sam will pay for their way in life. Should we go with the cheaper option? What happens when you buy the cheapest brand of shoes, or the cheapest computer, or car? Be prepared to have it fixed often, or to replace it soon.

Same is true of this policy. If we opt for the cheapest, then we will feel our mistake soon enough.

LKW: If you teach people to live within the welfare state, they pass on the dependancy to their children and this mentality continues for generations. Short term affects (even 10-15 years) may be more costly to our economy, but to allow children to grow up thinking the way you get money in this world is to go to the post office and pick up a check once a month is wrong. Many people in this country believe the government owes them something they have not earned. Before welfare it was up to one's family to help them through times of financial crisis... they always continued to earn their keep until they could pay their own way. Since welfare, the family groups have neglected their own and allowed the government to pick up the problem. This concept has led to many struggles within our culture today. Men and women who neglect to pay child support, abandoned children, elderly with no one to care for them dying on the streets... all of this is due to the breakdown of family resposibility for their own. When you have Uncle Sam to pick up the tab, why should you worry about your own accountability. If we can just start to instill responsibility and accountability through job opportunities/requirements for welfare recipients and discourage single parenthood by not increasing the checks for more fatherless children, we will do ourselves a great service in the long run.

Also, initially people on welfare were not allowed to vote. This was important because voting is a priviledge to people who pay taxes every year. Also it did not allow people on welfare to increase their benefits and deepen the cycle of poverty. It also made them realize that you need to contribute to this world if you want to change it for the better. Now those on welfare can vote themselves more money, more priviledges, and less responsibility. It is so hard on the people who give the money they earn to taxes that are used to support non-working, sometimes able-bodied people whose families have often spent generations on welfare and to make it worse... they do not know it is wrong!

Personally, I am willing to spend my money on developing integrity. It has certainly been spent more frivilously in the past.

srector: Work! I think that Welfare should have a time limit. People should not be able to make "being on welfare" their career.

Amymisha: The welfare system was created as a safety net for the entire population. Now this safety net has been taken away. Do people realize this? What do you do if your significant other decided to leave you with the kids and no money? Where would you turn to get help getting back on your feet? I know the welfare system has been abused, but it is a small percentage of people who do it. There are many, many more who do not misuse the system, who are doing everything they can do just to keep themselves and their kids alive. Don't believe everything you see on the news or read in the paper. They only report on the bad stories, you never read about the people who are only using welfare as a means of support while they get the education and training that they need to get off it. Believe me, it is not FUN to be on welfare, it is not easy. It is demeaning and when people find out you are on welfare they treat you like you are dirt. As for finding work...where are the jobs? There are millions of people on welfare, if they all are expected to enter the work force at once there will have to be some jobs here. In my town, there is nothing. There are minimum wage, part time jobs. However, if you have young children, daycare can eat up most of your income. Daycare expenses are often about $33 a day. Even if someone works full time, at minimum wage they are still never going to make enough to raise themselves out of poverty. Getting an education in this country is getting more and more expensive, much harder for the lower classes to get. I could rave on about this all day, I think the government has made a huge mistake that will not be easily remedied. And yes, by the way, I am a little biased. I am a single mother and a full time student. I recieve no child support at all and have had to use AFDC to help support myself. I have a part time job as well so none of you can call me lazy. I am working as hard as I can so I can get off AFDC, now I guess I don't have much choice. If my benefits are cut off, I will have to drop out of school and get by however I can. I am glad AFDC was there to help me and I imagine if any of you who criticize it could walk a mile in my shoes, you'd realize the good parts about it.

CyberGoddess: Welfare was setup as an "assistance plan", to help people during a time of need. It was not designed to be a lifestyle. I honestly can't say I'm the most informed on statistics regarding those who work and receive welfare, and those who just receive welfare, but from news projections, articles, and the likes, it is certain that a number of people that receive welfare make this their lifestyle. This is not the way to teach our children, and following generations of children, to live. Children learn from their parents, and when they see their parents getting money from the government for, they aren't going to want to go out and get a job. They'll want to earn money the old fashioned way..the way their parents did it...welfare. We can't continue to offer hand-outs to everyone. Certainly provide assistance to single working mothers...WIC is a great program. Taking everyone off of welfare is not the answer. There are so many other issues that need to be addressed before this can be enacted: child care, assistance for single, working parents, etc. But, to keep offering money to people that don't work, or won't work, is ridiculous. If we all quit our jobs tomorrow, or for some other reason lost them, sure we'd receive unemployment benefits. But even those run out after so long, and we're forced to find some way to pay for ourselves. We need to find a way to turn welfare back into what it originally was: a short-term assistance plan for those that needed it. Not a way of life.

Cadillac: They did the right thing. Make those people get off their ASSES!!

Vander: It's worth whatever cost to bring back the work ethic.

Maxgee: This is pathetic. This huge debate has erupted over welfare and half the comments I've read so far have been prefaced with: "well I don't really know everything that's going on out there, but this is what I think." Neither do I, and I am not going to add to the confusion by speaking where I know not.

Normodd: Not being a US Citizen; I will abstain from entering the debate in the form of argueing for one or other of the options put to the question; but _would_ like to ask a question myself. In the US ... are the also - like me War Veterans; with a 20% disab. (the med. officer explained that I got 20% after _only_ 3 years in hospital- because the whole range of assesments is actually between 0% - the result of most applications.. a few who get 20% and a small number of horrendous disablements who hit the peak assesment of 40% (this is the british war pension scheme!) This pays a princely summ of ca. 140US$ a month in pension and nowadays tends to quite effectively keep a person out of regular docomented employment all over Europe ..! Thank goodness there are one or two countries who will not compel a person in practice to be totally idle for nearly thier whole adult lives.. but will pay a reduced rate welfare while encourageing the individual to "stay as active as possible..!" if you get the idea. In the UK on the other they have just re-introduced the citizens hot-line to stop such persons who have managed to earn a few calories by fixing a neighbours car. Considering the sorta training and "talents" one tends to develop in the military; - if too radical a Catch22 situation is produced by forcing such guys to the wall.. (I noticed that US mil. veterans are exempt from the time limits on welfare.. but the amounts are apparently very low..) then is this not a pretty good way to "fuel the fires of the next potential Oklahoma etc..!?" I guess that the situation of US Disab. Mil. Veterans is quite different to that of a brit. veteran..!? You have stuff like a veterans administration and so on.. in the UK one gets a discharge form and "Bye!" If a person is locked into being officially non-employed in practice.. and on the other hand has no real suport and perhaps like in the UK neighbours being encouraged to smash him further into an unnecessary passive poverty.. where does the biz of the US leading the world down this path of ever reduced social spending while mainting loads of laws that tie ppl to such a lifestyle!? There are loads of ppl in the industrialised nations .. like myself - highly trained .. linguists .. computer competant etc etc. who can _find_ a job in minutes .. and then have some govt. official call the new employer within a week, asking for "all the data we need to see that your new employee Mr. xyz who is 20% disabled gets all the special improved protections and privaliges that your company have to provide for him.. including the very extended period of notice for termination of the work contract .. should he finnish his months trial!" No heard of beef - for guessing what the result of that one tends to be! So which is cheaper.. less social provision - or real intelligent law making that really give even slightly disabled ppl a chance to work normally .. or if there is none of the others and so on .. while i could myself never see a justification for harming innocents .. I have an awefull fear that this path we seem to be heading down could put the share price of one or two Check Republic Pyrotechnology firms way thru the root .. hopefull not a roof that my kid or me are standing under at the time! ;( ron bartle

sindaiya: President Clinton coupled his reasons for dismantling welfare with cheers for the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knows that millions of children are owed child support they are entitled to and that most of the absent parents are fathers. This is clearly a women's and children's issue and has less to do with "responsibility and accountability" on the recipients' side than on the part of others. Only one cent of every tax dollar goes for welfare and 2/3 of that one cent go for administration of the system itself. If anyone can tell me what is more important "work" than raising decent human beings, I would like to know what it is. Sadly, this hardest of jobs has always been the one least valued -- could it be because women are (and always have been) the primary workers?

CapnDick: Ok, here we go: I, for one, am extremely exhausted from the misconceptions that those who see welfare as some sort of universal "safety net" are trying to forment regarding the reform of the welfare sytem. In no way does the reform plan eliminate the safety net for people who are truely in need. But, it does rationally limit it and gives the social services people a mandate to diagnose those who may be either too stupid to get a job (I know, many people get promotions to management so thier stupidity does the least damage), or they may be too emotionally damaged to hold a job.

GooRoo: This whole thing seems like a joke to me, a cruel one at that, with a number of families, single moms and children as the victims. Just recently we saw how the stock market reacted to "good" news as far as "low" unemployment, what will it say to "full" employment...don't think it will ever really have to address the subject as it isn't about to happen. What will happen is, if this plan is followed through with, especially without an education plan being at the heart of this action, is more family turmoil, probably more youth problems (violence) and other juvenile crime. With moms not home after school, as national figures show, that is when most of the juvenile delinquecy takes place! After school! My question is: how many moms will be harassed as a case bore out in Rhode Island. A welfare mom of 20 years tries to make a break for the working world only to be arrested for neglecting her childrent as she was not home for them after school. Day care?....babysitter? now I'm laughing some more! ~GooRoo~

cranemec: the hell with the lazy bastards!! get off your asses and get a job or two!

mopar: I don't feel that it will cost American's more in the end. With people working, there is less time for crime, drugs, and violence. These welfare recipients will also become tax-paying citizens, repaying their debt to society. Let's end welfare as we know it, and rebuild the moral structure that our nation once had!

neelvk: Let us examine the economic and social structure of our country. In this country, we don't have "free capitalism". Instead, we have a system where the govt helps the businesses by controlling the rate of growth of the economy. We don't go through boom and bust cycles, rather the Federal Reserve manipulates the interest rates to warm up and cool down the economy. As a result, the unemployment rate, as measured by the labor department, hovers around 5%. And given that the mechanism used to measure the unemployment figure always underestimates, projections run around 8% for people out of work. I like the Federal Reserves actions. We have enjoyed *very* low inflation for many years and as a result we have a very solid economy, rivaling many rich countries. But this low inflation has come at a price, a human price. There are many people who cannot find work because of this lower limit on unemployment. Also, in an attempt to help the businesses, we have been cutting various govt outlays that helped students finish schooling or go to college. As a result, today there are many professions for which companies have to import people into this country. Welfare is a good solution to a bad problem. We cannot have 100% employment because that would cause high inflation. So, we should spend some money helping out those who cannot find a job. Small things such as GED certificate study or learning new linguistic or mechanical skills can go a long way in finding a decent job. Immunization of all children (not just the poor) would go a long way in fighting all kinds of maladies. Do you know that we spend millions of dollars stockpiling food that ends up rotting away? Why not simply give it away to anyone that can use it? I am convinced that the current welfare system is broken. But simply throwing it out of the window is not going to solve *any* problems... I hope that we don't look back at the legislative actions of 1996 in horror.

Bydyn: By its very nature, a safety net is a temporary thing. Realistic limitations on the length of time one can be supported by the safety net keep it from becomming a "livingroom" instead. That such limitations should be coupled with grants or scholorships to enable the person to get the needed job skills is a reasoned and reasonable appraoch to the problem. (The old maxim "If you want a better than minimum wage job, get better than minimum job skills" applies.) It is the parents job to provide support for their children (which means go after those non-child support paying men and women with the full force and fury of the law.), but a large part of being an adult lies in the acceptance of the responsibility of supporting oneself. The government cannot and should not become a substitute parent. To attempt to make it such is to deny the responsibility of adulthood while claiming the rights that adulthood brings. Tim

password: bones... let's say that all single mothers on welfare find a job. what then? child care in this state of nj cost an average $100.00 per child per week, housing for a 2 bedroom apartment average $500.00 per month electricty,gas, not to mention food all to come out of a mere min. wage of what now $5.15 well hold my horses! Get serious who in what right frame of mind can say that after 6-9 months of training there's a job waiting for the average siingle mom to fill. There's barely jobs for the COLLEGE STUDENTS, let's see I need an applicant to fill this position immediately certificate from some bullshit business school or an college grad. with an degree who do you think will get the job? but what about the person who went to school to better themselves,find work and get off welfare. No training,no experience, interoffice promotions, sorry Macdonalds around the corner is hiring starting at $5.00 per hour that will pay the rent,wash clothes, buy food, light the apartment, provide heat, etc.

LowKeyCat: This "Saftey Net" thing is a load of crap. Anyone with half a brain can survive on extremely little money. It isn't all that much fun, but that just fuels the fire for someone to get back on their feet. I cannot possibly imagine myself ever needing any welfare assistance, ever. So I may have to live in a tent at a nearby KOA Kampground ($10 per night, showers, laundry & pool included). Even if I were disabled I could earn $10 a day, plus a little extra for food. Heck, sitting on a streetcorner all day with an empty cup will get me that. If I ever was down and out, I wouldn't be there for long. The same applies to anyone else with half a brain. If a person can't handle that, they deserve their fate. They are obviously mentally incapable of surviving in today's world and should be removed from the gene pool. Survival of the fittest still applies! (Sorry, bleeding heart liberals, but this is the way nature works.

Kimmy: Not being able to work is one of the hugest blows to any person's self esteem. People on welfare need counselling to help them find their way out of that bad situation, they don't need to be forced into working. Obviously, they feel they CAN'T work if they are on welfare.

Misfit1: To Amymisha, The "safety net" hasn't been taken away. A cap has been placed on it *precisely* to keep those people abusing the system away from it. When will people in general and Liberals in particular understand this: America no longer has the money for bloated government handouts. It won't do those in need any good if the country goes bankrupt. The only way we will help support them (if they are physically unable to work) is through a strong economy (leading to a broader tax base.)

edwelch: I have held a job almost continually for 34 years. Through High School and College I have worked, at least part time, to pay my own way. If I have to be miserable, why shouldn't everyone?

Mikemikef: People on Welfare have a government job. It is just not a joyful one and it is not one to prepare them for the ladder up. All we need to do is admitt it is a poor job and define work to be done and people will decide to make better decisions. There once was a black lady on welfare in Philadelphia. They took a survey asking about people who got off welfare. She got it that you could get off welfare. She ended up with a good job, education, educated children and a recovered child that she chose to leave in jail till he got it.

LlamaGoo: Dammit! Why should there even be speculation on whether or not people should work or not! If our country is ever going to rise out of debt, there shouldn't be as much lazy people who sit on their ass and recieve welfare for doing it! For instance people recieve benifits to help take care of their children for whom they can't pay for. So what we are doing is paying for people to keep on having unprotected sex and fill the world with more kids who have a crappy life. And besides, what are the chances of these people actually using these benefits for the children? There is no assurance at all! On the other hand, people that work won't be sitting around on their asses but instead going out and adding to the economy instead of destroying it. The Llama has spoken!

tony: llama, are you really that stupid? The capitalist system has unemployment built in. Even if it were possible for all of the people on welfare to find jobs, it would hurt the economy, not help it. I would continue to respond to your foolish assertions, but there are too many of them. I'm too tired.

Leske: Its about time that people are expected to pull their own weight. I think that the bill is only a good start and should be even more rigid on the freeloaders that are bankrupting America. Welfare was supposed to be a safety net and not a way of life. Welfare only prolongs the misery!

dante: If it was actually a choice between work or welfare, most people would choose work. however, many people can not seem to find work. working at mc donalds is not alternative, because they can live on welfare and earn about the same amount. Even if people can't or don't want to work, for whatever reason, they have the right to a decent living; after all they are human beings. Have we lost all sense of decency and morality to let fellow humans live like animal scrounging for $4.00 bucks an hour. What's this world coming to? If you want to reform welfare, you're better off expanding daycare benefits for working moms, and increasing job training programs so people can get real jobs. - [email protected]

tracyo: What about people who are sick? What happens when to them when they "reach their limit" on welfare, but are still physically and/or mentally unable to work? What about women who are raped and end up having children they can't afford (in reference to the comment about unprotected sex) or women who use birth control responsibly but end up pregnant anyway? And if we want to talk about personal responsibility - we need to do A LOT more to force fathers to support these children. Why is it always the mother who is considered "lazy" and ends up on welfare because of assholes like these? Until we can answer the question about how to protect these people, we cannot simply take away the welfare they need to survive. We need strong support for education, job training and daycare for all people on welfare (not to mention the rest of us who need these things too as the cost of education and housing continues to rise). This is the only way the system will truly work to everyone's benefit. I don't want to see poor children out on the streets no matter how "lazy" or unlucky their parents may be - why give them another reason to join a gang and deal crack on the street corner? Instead, show them that there truly is a way out - and then help them to get there.

dbosley: dan- The issue of welfare reform is very complex. It is more difficult than the "let them work" crowd likes to believe. If all of the people on welfare were employed over the next two years, many economists feel that inflation would spike and prices would hike for everyone. Also, employment would respond to the corresponding hike in inflation and more people would lose their jobs. This does not mean that we should not reform welfare. Clearly, the system does not work presently. It is expensive for our government, and it does not give those on the program the tools to get off of the system. However, we must be careful as to how we reform this system. A vast majority of the people on welfare assistance are on for a short time period. Those people have the ability to get off of the dole because they have the tools to be competitive in our job market. The long term recipients do not have those tools. For one reason or another, the system has failed them. It may be their fault or it may be the system's fault, but they are not equipped to compete in society. A majority of the long term recipients do not have much work experience ( if any at all); and a majority do not have a high school education. Does society want to send those people out into a world where they can not compete? Notwithstanding the fact that we all have our favorite anecdotal stories of welfare abusers, I don't believe that we want to turn people out into the streets without giving them the tools to compete. Let us keep in mind that many of the things that are needed by welfare recipients are not "welfare problems", but societal problems. The general population needs more health care and day care. These are only more evident in the welfare population because they are on the lowest end of the income levels and their choices are limited. For us to truly solve the problems of this long term population, we must address the problems of job training, education, day care, affordable housing, and affordable health care for everyone in our workforce in the country. Since these are monumentally expensive and complex, amd since we don't want to face the answers of how or if we pay for these, it is easier to criticize the welfare system and the recipients. Aside from welfare reform, Congress has tried to cut scholarships for college, day care assistance for states, has criticized the Clinton administrations attempts to reform health care and has enacted deep cuts in job training programs. A recent study by the Institute for Work and Learning in Washington D.C. indicates that the average high school graduate from this year's graduating class will have to be trained or retrained for their jobs five to seven times in their careers. Perhaps instead of "reforming welfare" we should put more energy into making sure that all of our young citizens are prepared for the workforce of the future. If not, there won't be enough welfare slots to go around.

AgDragon: There has certainly been quite a range of responses to this topic. I can certainly agree with many of the folks who have offered their opinions, both pro and con. My opinion on the Work or Welfare debate is as follows. I certainly agree with those who see the people who take advantage of "the system" and want to see that stopped. Misery loves company and so those who are working want to see those who aren't just as miserable as themselves. The whole issue boils down to a couple of main points. First, all we ever see in the media (controlled by large corporations) are those people who take advantage of the system, and not those who legitimately need the assistance. Second, as many folks have pointed out thus far, minimum wage is not a living wage. Most of the people on welfare are single women with children. A single woman with children cannot work a minimum wage job and survive. Consider this: in the South (a relatively inexpensive place to live) the cheapest housing that would allow her to keep her children (sorry, living at a campground would only mean that her children would be taken away) is $180/month, the least expensive day-care (she couldn't just leave them home alone) is $20/day, food for three is at least I would like to add something on the typical line "give them more education and they will find a job". I have an advanced degree in a technical field and I have not been able to find a job other than minimum wage positions. The education fallacy has been thrown around for years but isn't valid any more. It certainly helps if you have a degree when you are looking for a job but if there are no jobs out there then it doesn't matter if you are Sir Isaac Newton or Joe Blow-- you're not going to get a job. And as many people have stated before, our economy requires unemployment to survive. At any one time at least 5% of the population needs to be on our "safety net" because there aren't any more working-wage jobs to be found. My solution is the following: Why not put more people into positions of tracing down welfare abusers (which would more than pay for itself in the long run) and spend less time expecting people to miraculously find nonexistant jobs. This would both create jobs and save money. Secondly, I would offer (perhaps even require?) people to work -- even community service work (soup kitchens, the like) when they receive welfare, provided they are permitted to bring their children with them. This way, the people who are receiving the benefit of the government get to help other people _and_ they will learn some "work ethic" that so many people think our country needs. Please forgive the long-windedness of this but it is a topic that concerns me deeply. -AgDragon