Welfare

The welfare system has been broke for quite a while now, but no-one really wants to address it. The way the system is now, it is slow to help people that find themselves suddenly needing it, like from a job loss, so they end up losing everything in the process. And it also creates public assistance "lifers". These "lifers" usually are uneducated so they can't find a job that would provide for them the same as public assistance does. They then find that they get more benefits if they have more dependants, so a lot of them have more children, adding more people dependant on public assistance.

The reason why this hasn't really been addressed is that there is no easy political solution. You can't just drop welfare. It is morally abhorrent to just do away with welfare and let children live on the street, starve, and have no real options for their future, and thus no politician would try to do away with it, although most complain about it. Nor should they try to get rid of it, but they need to fix it. Right now they are not getting much return on the money spent on public assistance, nor are they really effective in reducing the welfare rolls. To come up with a solution, we need to list the problems. Some problems with public assistance are as follows:

1) While no-one is going to get rich on public assistance, it does pay better than a lot of jobs that are available when you factor in the health care, rent help, and food stamps. The more dependants someone has, the bigger the difference.
2) There is no real incentive to take a lower paying job as you end up with less than if you stayed on public assistance, and one of the biggest factors/costs that prevent them from taking jobs is the fact that they will not be able to afford health care for themselves and their children.
3) There is not only no penalty for increasing the welfare load of your household, you get rewarded for doing so, meaning that you get more money for having more kids.
4) There is no real incentive for single women with kids on welfare to name the father of their kids, or some kind of penalty when they don't, to have them help with some of the costs of raising them. Also, that is a reason why men are more than happy to live with women on public assistance as girlfriends instead of as wives as it means that they get the benefit of public assistance too and get to keep their check to spend on "fun" stuff instead of on rent, utilities, food etc.
5) There not only is no incentive for most single women to marry, it isn't in her best interests to marry, because if the man they want to marry works, that means they will get less money and there will be more pressure to get off of public assistance.
6) There hasn't been any real effort to get some kind of return for public assistance.
7) People who grow up dependant on public assistance seem to have a sense of entitlement, that there is no need to work for things that you want or need. These kids with a sense of entitlement are more likely not to worry about becoming productive members of society, and are more likely to have less regard for other peoples values, property, etc.
8) Because of the financial incentives, a lot more kids on public assistance are in single parent families, with different male figures moving in and out. These kids are not learning that there should be a commitment by males to their family. These kids face all the difficulties of being raised by a single parent who also at times share some kind of commitment with another, who doesn't have the kids long term interests at heart.

So what do we do. We can't just throw everyone on public assistance on the street and let them just fend for themselves. And I am sure that anyone who has temporarily been unemployed is certainly glad there was something they could fall back on while they find another job. Here is what I would propose

1) Help people when they first lose their jobs retain their house if they chose. This part can be made where the cost of this help can be paid back by the beneficiary. Make this benefit have a limited time, as an incentive to become employed again.
2) For some kind of return on the money, insist on some sort of community give back. Adults can be evaluated for their skills and abilities and assigned tasks/jobs. This could mean park trash pick-up, or helping watch other adults children while they do some tasks. Time will be left for job searches and training. If there is no real effort into becoming employed, more time can be required for these tasks/jobs.
3) Make the public benefits such that it scales when they are working, instead of dropping. In particular, factor in and keep health care benefits for those that are underemployed. This is to encourage working even at part time or low paying/no benefits jobs.
4) Be in control of where public assistance individuals live. Make a tier system of housing and related benefits. If they are fully compliant in doing all that is required of them, and all children have their father accounted for, they can be in the top tier. If they don't do their assigned task/job, they drop down a tier. If they get pregnant (or get a woman pregnant) while on public assistance, they drop down a tier. If they don't disclose the father of their children to the best of their ability, drop down a tier. If it is proven that they are neglectful to their children (criteria can be established), drop down a tier. If they have a member of the opposite sex move in with them for an extended time without reporting it, drop down a tier. Here are some examples of tiers.

a) For the top tier they have some freedom to decide where they live, including potentially a house. Also as a reward they can get other benefits, such as cable, Internet, cell phone, and a larger allowance for clothes. Give food stamps as normal.
b) The second tier is either a loss of the extra benefits, or a loss of a choice to live in a house. They can be moved to an apartment complex.
c) The third tier is loss of both choice to where they live, and all extra benefits.
d) The fourth tier is moved into an apartment complex with families in similar circumstance, meaning, single women with children go to an apartment complex where only single women and their children are allowed. Single men goes to an apartment complex where only men and their dependants are allowed. Married couples go into an apartment complex for only married families. In the single apartment complexes, no visitors from the opposite sex are allowed.
e) The fifth tier is moved into a communal type facility. Families can have their own set of bedrooms/bathroom but no common living space. No visitors are allowed in their personal living area. They also don't get any food stamps, their meals will be served in a cafeteria in the communal area. Also no clothing allowance, all clothes can be either good second hand clothes if available, or generic clothing the government provides.
f) Provide whatever birth control desired to any that are wanting it (including the morning after pill but excluding abortion). This would be a sore spot for some people, but the reality is that people on public assistance shouldn't be having children they can't support. It is one thing to have the children and then end up on public assistance, it is another to have one knowing that you can't financially support the child. It is also unrealistic to believe that people won't give in to thier hormones and have sex (and for people without money, it is an inexpensive activity). Also, the people that are the most opposed to this also are the ones most opposed to the higher taxes needed to pay for more public assistance children.

5) All adults on public assistance have to give DNA samples. There can be limits to the uses of this material, but this sampling will be mainly used to identify parents (mainly fathers who aren't claiming their children) as a way to collect some sort of child support. Since public assistance isn't a constitutional right, and people have a right to find other ways to support themselves (beg mom and dad or anyone else to support them) this shouldn't be a problem.
6) Various training can be provided for people that are on any form of public assistance (including the underemployed).


We should be ensuring that we get the most for our public assistance dollars (our tax dollars), while providing a safe environment, making sure all basic needs are cared for, while providing the best opportunity and incentive for people to get off of public assistance. We also need to provide kids with a sense of accountability and for them to grow up without a sense of entitlement. We also have to give them a feeling that someone is watching out for them. With the housing under government control, there can be methods employed to ensure that all public assistance housing are monitored (non-personal space) for safety of all, with undesirable activity by residents (gang activity, drug use, etc) and proven trouble making non-residents kept out. Residents can be given a chance to be correct said behaviour, and if not corrected, move down a tier with more supervision.

This is where I suggest starting with reforming the welfare system. I am sure there can be tweeks and modifications as neede. Unfortunately there would be difficulties enacting this. There would be a high initial cost as the government would be needing to pay for some modifications to various housing to get it set up. Republicans would most likely oppose it because they would feel the rewards for good behavior are too generous and is too socialist like. I think those are unrealistic fools. Some of the politicians might even realize that it would cost less in the long run and would help reduce the amount of people on public assistance, but wouldn't want to get painted as giving more to those that don't earn it. A lot of democrats probably won't like it because they will probably believe that that these programs infringe on peoples rights. I would say to them that no-one is forcing them to be on public assistance, and since there is no constitutional right to public assistance, we can put requirements on their participation in those assistance programs.