An Inconvenient System

There has been a collective cry for welfare reform. Before this can be discussed, we must look at a few facts.

The following was taken from the Urban Institute:

No one likes the current welfare system. Governors complain that federal law is overly prescriptive and are willing to take less federal money in return for more flexibility. The public believes that welfare is anti-work and anti-family although polls show that the public wants welfare reformed in ways that do not penalize children. Welfare recipients find dealing with the system degrading and demoralizing; most would prefer to work. Experts note that welfare has done little to stem the growth of poverty among children. In all but two states, welfare benefits (including food stamps) are insufficient to move a family above the poverty line.

The majority of women on welfare had their first child as a teenager. Most of these births now occur outside of marriage and are unintended. However, there is little support in the research literature for the proposition that denying benefits to this group will prevent such pregnancies from occurring. Modest impacts on marriage and abortion are more likely.

Moving more children out of poverty requires that income from a low-wage job be combined with child care, health insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and support from both parents. Child support reform in particular could reduce poverty and welfare costs as much as anything else that recently has been proposed.

At the same time, for budgetary reasons the broader safety net is predicted to shrink. The PRA alone provides 13 percent of the total five-year savings in the House budget resolution. Thus, even if no other low-income program such as Medicaid were affected by attempts to balance the budget, the poorest fifth of the population (which receives 4 percent of total U.S. income) would bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

In sum, measured against the objectives of providing adequate flexibility to the states, encouraging work, strengthening the family, and reducing poverty, most current proposals are found wanting.

Here in New York, we once had the CETA program. That was a program designed to give the poor on the job training. It filtered money back into the system as well as cut the welfare spending almost in half. It was the first program Pataki cut once in office.

Imagine, you're a divorced parent with two small children. You make minimum wage which amounts to about $170 a week, after taxes. You spend $50 of that on day care. That leaves you with $120 a week or $480 a month for rent, heat, lights, food.. Could you do it? Should the small children suffer?

I do agree that there are some that abuse the system, but should we, in good conscience abolish the entire system for the sins of a few?

My grandmother had congestive heart failure because she couldn't afford her medication. So she just didn't buy it. As you know, both of my grandparents were the hard working poor. Is this right? It is the complications of our system that caused her death.
We must also agree that the escalating unemployment rate and cost of living is having a hand in the welfare needs of many.

We must also think and consider the homeless. Not all are your stereotypical homeless. It can happen in an instant - to any one of us. If you don't believe me, re-read my "pro-choice" story. If not for my family, where would I be? My children? In order to receive welfare, you must have an address. Which in no way helps the homeless. They, the most needy, depend almost solely on private and church time and financial donations.

While I agree, there needs to be some reform, I am completely unwilling to give up on the system. I am unwilling to turn my back on the poor, those abandoned and neglected by their government on the local, state and national level. I refuse to give my tax dollars to the likes of Haliburton and ignore those in need.