Welfare Reform Idea
Douglas Meier
channel recently, especially welfare mothers. It seems that several people
are lamenting about this system which pays out large sums of money yearly to
people who do not have jobs.
I, too, have been wondering about this program. I feel that our
current system is too easily abused, that it is leaching too much from the
American tax payer, and is in general the single greatest force lagging on our
economy today. I hear a great deal from others on reforming it. Some suggest
we get rid of it altogether, others think it should be beefed up to the point
where almost all income is redistributed evenly. After a great deal of
pondering, I've come up with a solution that I will open on this channel and
invite others here to discuss it with me and make comments on it, sending it
to other newsgroups for discussion if appropriate. Thank you all for your
cooperation. Thoughtful discussion and criticism is welcomed, but please send
all flames to dev null.
Our current system of welfare seems to be perpetual. People on
welfare can stay on the dole indefinitely. This drain on our national funds
from lifetime and sometimes multi-generational welfare recipients is what has
dragged California's state economy to it's current state. This trend must
end.
I therefore propose that welfare have two major initial changes to it:
First, increase the welfare award. Second, put a cap on the time a person can
draw welfare. The welfare time cap will put pressure on the recipient to find
employment while the increase in benefits will make the recipient better able
to look for work by giving the recipient more money to use in travel expenses,
typing resumes, and the like.
However, when the recipient reaches the time cap, will his benefits be
completely stopped? Certainly not! That would be inhumane. The recipient
has, however, not fulfilled his responsibility to society by choosing to keep
riding on the incomes of hard working men and women, so he must now make a
choice. This brings me to the most revolutionary part of my plan: the Labor
Internment Facility.
Once the recipient reaches the cap (or before, if he so chooses) he
would be placed in a Labor Internment Facility. These facilities would be
fully enclosed, fully functional vocational schools, teaching people job
skills needed in industry, entrepreneurial skills if he is bold enough to try
his hand at running a small business, and even simple life skills such as
reading, writing, and balancing a checkbook as well as interviewing skills,
help with resumes, and the like. For the designated period of time the person
needs to complete his program, he would live, train, and work toward being a
productive citizen in our nation. After he graduates from his chosen program,
the ex-welfare recipient would be given a short period of time in a housing
facility while he looked for a job (with job placement assistance), saved
money from his work, and looked for a home on his own. Some could even be
employed at the Labor Interment Facility as instructors as well as moral
support for people coming in behind them.
Let's look on the effect of this on America. First of all, it takes a
person who is being given our tax dollars and turns him into one who pays tax
dollars into the government. Secondly, these people would become positive
interacters in our economy, putting in instead of only taking out. As more
and more people get off the dole and on a payroll, the boost the economy would
feel would help us all.
There are special circumstances where this could not be put in effect,
of course (such as those too critically disabled to work), and the transition
would have to occur slowly, with things such as pilot programs sprouting in a
few major cities, then increasing in size to smaller cities and finally parts
of rural America.
Thanks for your time, and as I mentioned before, thoughtful commentary
is appreciated.
--
Douglas C. Meier | Remember to vote this election year,
Northwestern University, ACNS | you probably won't get another one.
I don't claim them, they don't |
claim me....... | dme...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Alex Goykhman
...
> Once the recipient reaches the cap (or before, if he so chooses) he
>would be placed in a Labor Internment Facility. These facilities would be
>fully enclosed, fully functional vocational schools, teaching people job
>skills needed in industry, entrepreneurial skills if he is bold enough to try
>his hand at running a small business, and even simple life skills such as
>reading, writing, and balancing a checkbook as well as interviewing skills,
>help with resumes, and the like. For the designated period of time the person
>needs to complete his program, he would live, train, and work toward being a
>productive citizen in our nation. After he graduates from his chosen program,
>the ex-welfare recipient would be given a short period of time in a housing
>facility while he looked for a job (with job placement assistance), saved
>money from his work, and looked for a home on his own. Some could even be
>employed at the Labor Interment Facility as instructors as well as moral
>support for people coming in behind them.
Sounds like a welfare GULAG to me.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Wee
>the ex-welfare recipient would be given a short period of time in a housing
>facility while he looked for a job (with job placement assistance), saved
And if he still can't find a job, he should be cut off from welfare. All that
would be available to him would be space in a minimal-living-standard
facility that is similar to a prison with the difference that he could leave
if he wanted.
Forget dignity and all that. This nation can no longer afford to have its
cake and eat it too.
Elizabeth G. Levy
Interestingly, Mickey Kaus, a self-professed "Civic Liberal" advocates
something vaguely like this for people who are clearly capable of
working, but refuse to seek work. Yes, we'll give you food and
shelter, but the system will be explicitly paternalistic and without
dignity. However, the private economy may not create enough jobs for
everyone. Those who are willing and able to work, who have taken part
in training programs, may still get royally screwed.
For people who are able to work, and want to work, he proposes a
Federal work program: individuals would be paid below minimum wage
(incomes would be subsidized by an Earned Income Tax Credit to
guarantee the necessities) to work in the public sector
(infrastructure repair, etc). Kaus argues that people will not mind
this type of assistance, since it gives aid to people who are part of
the same "work ethic" as other wage earners. These types of federal
work programs would also allow individuals to get referrals from their
supervisors, which is one thing the underclass may not be able to
obtain otherwise.
--
"When you vomit on someone, that's usual a social faux pas from which there
is no recovery...no vomit sympathy cards from Hallmark...'Next time,
lunch is on me...'"
Michael Polen
|> Douglas Meier) writes:
|> >
|> >.... After he graduates from his chosen program,
|> >the ex-welfare recipient would be given a short period of time in a housing
|> >facility while he looked for a job (with job placement assistance), saved
|> >money from his work, and looked for a home on his own....
|>
|> And if he still can't find a job, he should be cut off from welfare. All that
|> would be available to him would be space in a minimal-living-standard
|> facility that is similar to a prison with the difference that he could leave
|> if he wanted.
|>
|> Forget dignity and all that. This nation can no longer afford to have its
|> cake and eat it too.
If this country went into a serious recession and you lost your job and
there were no jobs, period, is this how you would want to be treated?
Is you position based upon the premise that there are jobs to be had and
this "person" just isn't smart enough and dedicated enough to find one?
--
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.