Promoting Failure

I was talking with a friend the other day and she was contemplating quitting her job so that she would be eligible for food stamps.  She and her husband are raising three children and she is going to school desperately trying to get into a nursing program.  She was told that they make approximately $50 too much to receive any type of aid.  I am not saying that I would agree if she decided to quit and I understand that there has to be a limit to how much a family can make, but it seems to me like our government promotes failure.  If she chose not to work even though she was perfectly capable of doing so, the government would help her.  I just don't follow the reasoning.

My friends' story isn't the only one like this.  Another friend of mine's brother got a divorce from his wife - not because they were unhappy together but so she could receive federal assistance as a single mother.  This of course is another decision that I don't agree with, but the reasoning is the same.  The government is more willing to help single parents than married couples. 

Did you know that the current poverty line for a family of four is $22,050?  The organizations that use these poverty guidelines to determine eligibility include: Head Start, the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. 

Let it be known, I am not saying that we should allow more people to be eligible for welfare programs.  I am saying that we should allow the right people to be eligible. Second and third generation families should not be living on federal assistance.  It is a system designed to help people through tough times, not discourage people from bettering themselves.  The system is abused every single day. 

Here's another scenario: When I was younger, still living at home, my mother was receiving unemployment benefits. For the majority of my childhood, my mother was a stay at home mom, so I am willing to say that we didn't need the money in the first place. But nonetheless, she was eligible for it. In order to get her check each week, she had to make a phone call and answer yes or no using the keypad on the telephone to questions pertaining to her job search. How many people do you think press "1" for, "yes, I looked for work this week," and probably never even left their home?

I worked in a grocery store for years and I saw first hand the "tricks" of the food stamp customers. Food stamps are no longer actual paper money (which looked a lot like monopoly money). For several years now, food stamps have been in the form of a card. Recipients can get cash back from the card much like we do with our debit cards. Customers cannot buy alcohol or tobacco with the card, but they can get cash back and then buy these items.  I understand that the cash option was intended for people to buy things such as toilet paper, paper towels, clothes, shoes, etc.  I understand that these are necessities too, but doesn't it make more sense to allow these to be bought with the card as opposed to allowing people to buy beer, cigarettes, and God knows what else with the cash?

It seems that a few states are starting to catch on to at least part of this.  March of this year as many as eight states were working on legislation to incorporate random drug testing into the food stamp and unemployment benefits programs.  Tennessee, which has not yet adopted drug testing, has proposed a $600 cap on lottery winnings which would discourage those receiving welfare to gamble.  One problem is; although these are Federal programs and states receive $16.5 billion each in Federal funds every year for these programs, there are no Federal regulations.  The welfare reform of the 90's gave these decision making powers back to the states and therefore each state is different. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, as of September 2008, 1.6 billion families (or 1 in 8 Americans) were welfare recipients.  The Federal government will spend nearly $400 billion this year for welfare programs.  One in eight receives benefits, $400 billion spent in federal funds, this is clearly a national problem and should be handled on a national level.  I would encourage drug testing for recipients, eliminate the "cash back" option on cards, base unemployment compensation on hosuehold income rather than the loss of an individual job, make benefits decline over time, and not allow benefits to last longer than two years. 

During this two year time, if you have not found a job within six weeks, we will find one for you.  Does that mean that the government becomes an employment agency?  No, we don't have the money for that.  It means that you can do community service - earn your money!  Such a program would do three things; 1) no longer allow people to "get something for nothing," 2) push people to actually get off of welfare and 3) help clean up our communities. 

I have no problem with families' receiving assistance as needed, but when second and third generations are receiving benefits, something is terribly wrong with the system.  I could be way off here, but unfortunatly when you try to research statistics about welfare recipients you can only find the race and age breakdowns.  I could care less about how old someone is or what color they are.  My concerns are more about how long have they been receiving benefits, are they working at all, how many are criminals, are they drug users, how many dependants do they have (the Octomom comes to mind), etc.  These are the questions that I have, these are the statistics I would like to see, these are the areas that lead me to believe the government promotes failure.  How about we start helping those that actually want to better themselves!