Log in to become a member of Kyle Krannebitter's Fan Club!
Millions of Americans are enrolled in the welfare system; a program designed to give a boost to the poor and needy families to help them make it through the year while they got back on their feet. Unfortunately, it has now become a way of life for many. Many argue that welfare is now destroying our culture and creating dependent people who learned to abuse privileges that come with living in America . Welfare has become a target for gluttonous mothers and others who have no values or willingness to obtain a job. This definitely makes an impact on the needy families and people with disabilities who deserve to receive aid from this program. Mothers who sit around waiting for the next check to come in the mail and are not willing to do anything to help themselves or their families should not have the privilege of receiving government assistance. That is why there should be enforceable guide lines that are met to regulate how long people stay on the welfare system.
In earlier times of American history there were no welfare programs to help aid the needy. All America had depended on the charity of churches, and sometimes private organizations to help the poorest families. It was not until 1935 when President Roosevelt signed the Aid For Dependant Children (AFDC) that a program was put in effect by the government. This was a bill containing the original provisions of the welfare program:
The bill allowed $18 per month for one child and $12 for each additional child. The bill expanded on the infrastructure of state programs that had been set up as widow's funds'. Only single mothers received funds. At this time, just about 50% of those receiving AFDC were children supported by widows, 17% were children with an incapacitated father, 21% were supported by a woman who had been abandon by her husband and just 2% of children on the welfare rolls were supported by women who had never married (Snyder 1).
This bill continued to stay in effect until 1996 when President Bill Clinton negotiated with Congress to pass the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act which drastically changed the program. The program replaced AFDC by calling it the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF was very similar to AFDC but limited the receipt of benefits to five years and with few exceptions made recipients responsible to find work as soon as ready, or no later than two years after coming on assistance. Bill Clinton's reform was criticized by many because they believed it was too much like AFDC and would have no effect on a change. Statistics show that:
There were 2,032,157 families receiving TANF cash benefits in June 2003, the most recent month for which data is available. The total represents a 0.3 percent decrease from March 2003 and a 54 percent decrease from August 1996, when TANF was enacted. A total of 4,955,479 individuals were receiving TANF benefits in June 2003, 0.6 percent fewer than in March and 60 percent fewer than in August 1996. From January 2001 to June 2003, the number of TANF families declined 5 percent and the number of recipients declined 9.2 percent ("Temporary Assistnace" 1).
Although statistics show that Clinton 's reform works, people are still continually abusing the system Recipients find new ways each year to prolong their dependency on the system. It is not fair to hard working tax payers who are giving their well earned money to greedy, lazy Americans that are able to work, but do not choose to. Mothers are the most common offenders among the many million Americans who receive aid from the government. Women easily cheat the program by simply having more children, by having more children means more money comes in the mail. They also live with partners, which according to the regulations are not allowed. In order to be a recipient, mothers eligible to receive welfare are to be single and be the sole support of their children. Drug and alcohol use are the two other ways that mothers could and will abuse the welfare program. Many problems occur when welfare recipients begin to use drugs. They tend to use their allotted money on drugs which leaves no money for taking care of their children. Their next step into deceit is to resort to getting pregnant because they know by having more children means more money. Pollack states in the "American Journal of Public Health" that, "Among 2002 National Survey of Drug Use and Health respondents deemed "in need" of substance-abuse treatment, welfare recipients were significantly more likely than non-recipients to receive such services.Controlling for other factors, welfare receipt was associated with higher prevalence of illicit drug use" (2024). This study shows how people on welfare are still abusing the system even with the reforms that have been activated and put into effect.
To show personal experience or occurrence with this situation would be an example my grandparents informed me of. My grandparents have a dear friend that lives next door to a woman who is collecting welfare. The row home she lives in with her three children and her boyfriends rents for approximately $1300. per month. But being that she is on government assistance, she only pays $24. a month. This lady does not hold a job and also gets food stamps and subsidized electric. She receives money from the government for her three sons. Critics on the opposing side may say that she might not have the skills to work. This is a totally false statement. It is a personally known fact that if someone is looking for a job that is on welfare the government will provide training and help that person find a job. This is a known fact because it has happened to my second cousins wife before they got married. The most ridiculous part about the welfare program is that the government is willing to provide help for people that are capable of working but are just too lazy to work. A more irritating situation is when a honest working family becomes a victim to hard, unfortunate times and requires assistance from the government but don't qualify to receive the help. Here is an example from the news; a father and mother are both working two jobs to make ends meet, they have a son who has a chronic illness that can not be treated because they don't have the money for pay for it. The government would not help this family in any way, so the married couple had to get a legal divorce so that they could say their son lives with and is supported by a single mother and she doesn't have enough money to pay for the bill. By the mother being single and having a child she was able to receive the health care. This situation completely makes no sense. Basically what the government is doing is allowing people to cheat the system just so their child can receive treatment. What is wrong with this picture? You would think that the government would be willing to help the family instead of putting them on Medicare which would go against their ultimate goal of decreasing the governments' responsibility for yet another dependent family. The government needs to re-evaluate and enforce their government assistance system.
In Clinton 's reform, "PRWORA permitted chemical drug testing. This allowed states to deny benefits to adults convicted of drug felonies, and allowed states to terminate benefits to illicit drug-using women who violated program requirements or who simply failed to find employment" (Pollack 2024). From the beginning of this reform, some states began to implement their state welfare programs to help illicit drug and alcohol abusers to receive treatment to able them entry into the work force. The state of California developed the "Cal-WORKS" program where "each county receives a portion of a 63.5 million dollar funding pool designed to help persons receiving welfare benefits remove alcohol and drug-related barriers to employment" ("California Counties" 1). Not only is the state of California trying to help drug abusers, but the "Governor of Illinois, Jim Edgar has proposed to reduce welfare program spending by 2.5 percent in the states fiscal year that begins July 1. He also is suggesting setting aside 3 million dollars in new money toward the establishment of a drug screening and assessment program for welfare beneficiaries" ("Illinois Considers" 4). If Edgar's proposal is approved, the state will require welfare recipients who have substance abuse problems to undergo treatment. The good part, state officials believe that beneficiaries will get off the public assistance treadmill and provide for themselves. The bad part would be for those beneficiaries who would have their benefits gradually decrease and have no intentions to cooperate with the rehab programs.
Welfare programs have proven beneficial in helping people and families that are in need. Because of the program's abuse, new state regulations were needed. Statistics show that the reform program implemented by Bill Clinton back in 1996 is working. It has succeeded in reducing the number of families and people on assistance. A quote from the Truman Show states, "we except the reality of the world who which we are presented." This phrase underlines what sociologist call agents of socialization. The book definition for agents of socialization is groups or social contexts in which significant processes of socialization occur." There are two types of socializations, the first is primary socialization which takes place in infancy and early childhood and is the most crucial period of culture learning. Children around the age of two tend to absorb a lot of crucial information at this stage. The family is the main source of cultural learning where they learn language and behavior patterns. If a child is born from a mother that abuses drugs and lives on welfare it is obvious to say that this child will be exposed to nothing but the environment they live in. This will start a family trend where everything is given for free and nothing is achieved. Children will have no incentive to achieve anything in life because they would not have the right support for their goals. The final type is secondary socialization which takes place from childhood to maturity. At this point other agents take over the family role such as peer groups and the surrounding communities. As children begin to develop into young adults, they start to be influenced by their surroundings and friend. Stereotypically, most welfare families live in subsided homes where there is nothing but government assisted families. This point refers back to the family where there is no incentive to make oneself better. No one peer involved in the young adults life will be able to support or encourage higher education because they may not have achieved that themselves. Not even the school could help the young adult because most teens will find school not important because most likely there parents dropped out or failed high school. So to them, there would be no need in school. The point is, if more welfare mothers keep having more and more children just for the money, they are just bringing more and more future government assisted people in the world. The children will not be able to see any other side of the world if they are trapped within that type of environment. The agents of socialization proves that the Truman quote is true that children are highly influenced by their families and environment. Without strict regulation, a vicious cycle will continue to grow with an increasing number of government assisted people. In the reform, Clinton allowed states to implement their own regulations to the program. Many states have introduced into their program assistance abusers. The results have clearly shown that the programs were helping, but if not regulated properly, many people will continue to abuse and find new ways to cheating the program. That is why enforcement of the laws that are already in place need to be applied and up held so that the numbers of recipients continue to decrease. The welfare program was implemented to help those who are in need of a little extra help until they can become a self sufficient individual and should not be allowed to be used as a source of permanent income.
Unfortunately you make some very valid points. I live in an area where there are many families living the welfare lifestyle. What bothers me most is that we have some very hard working low-income families who get little help. When they try to cut back (move to a cheaper place) to get ahead a little, their benefits are cut more. This never made any sense to me.
this is a good article. You have made points that are very true. it is sad to see people become so lazy and have to depend on other people to get things for them. I know a family that are on welfare and they have high speed internet, big plasma screen tvs and fancy cars. Their kids go to a public school and get the worst grades. I also know another family who is not on welfare that don't have heating (except the use of a wood stove), don't have a fancy tv with cable, they don't have high speed internet and their kids go to a private Christian school with the tuition being around 8,000 dollars a year for their 2 kids. Their mom and dad both work and they can barely keep enough food in the house. It is sad that it has to be this way that hard working people who care for their kids have just barely enough to send them to school to not have fancy items while people on welfare don't have to worry about a thing. The welfare plan was meant for only one reason and that is for those families that have been laid off or fired and can't seem to find a job for a long while, only then can they use welfare. That is the way it should be.
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or
Question:
This Article has been viewed 172
times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Monday, October 06, 2008 View other articles written by Kyle Krannebitter(320)
If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
