Welfare. Whether you collect it, or you pay for it (and for EVERY working American does
one of the two), most citizens of our country are familiar with it. Yet as every second
of the day passes, more and more of my money and yours is being allotted to this growing
epidemic called welfare. The Personal Responsibility Act, signed by the President, was a
monumental change in welfare as we know, or used to know it. The welfare system is still
in need or more strict and stringent policy reform, yet the Personal Responsibility Act
was a prodigious step in the right direction.
In the past few years, the federal governments and state governments have tried to
change and improve the welfare system. The Clinton Administration campaigned to "end
welfare as we know it." The Administration's proposal limits AFDC benefits to two years,
during which employment services would be provided to recipients. Nearly 20 welfare
reform bills have been introduced in the 103rd Congress. Besides the above mentioned
bill, three major proposals were offered by Republican members: The GOP Leadership
Welfare bill, The Real Welfare Reform Act, and The Welfare and Teenage Pregnancy
Reduction Act. Now the Republicans have pulled together a strong and controversial bill
on welfare reform. The Personal Responsibility Act is an attempt to overhaul the welfare
system by putting limits on eligibility and reducing dependency on government. This bill
addresses the increasing problem of illegitimacy, requires welfare recipients to work,
and caps welfare spending. Current programs will be consolidated, time limits will be
placed on benefits and savings are to go to deficit reduction. The bill's main thrust is
to give states greater control over the benefits programs, work programs, and Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments and requirements.
Under the bill, the structure for AFDC payments will drastically change. Mothers under
the age of 18 may no longer receive AFDC payments for children born out of wedlock and
mothers who are ages 18, 19, and 20 can be prohibited by the states from receiving AFDC
payments and housing benefits. Mothers must also establish paternity to as a condition
for receiving AFDC payments, except in cases of rape and incest and if the state
determines that efforts to establish paternity would result in physical danger to the
mother. The bill requires states to establish paternity in ninety percent of their
cases. States are also encouraged to develop procedures in public hospitals and clinics
to determine paternity and establish legal procedures that help pinpoint paternity in a
reasonable time period. Also, in order to reduce the amount of time families are on
welfare, states must begin moving welfare recipients into work programs if they have
received welfare for two years. States are given the option to drop families from
receiving AFDC benefits after they have received welfare for two years if at least one
year has been spent in a work program. States must drop families from the program after
they have received a total of five years of AFDC benefits.
The bill allows states to design their own work programs and determine who will be
required to participate. Welfare recipients must work an average of 35 hours a week or
enroll in work training programs. By the year 2001, 1.5 million AFDC recipients will be
required to work.
The bill grants greater flexibility to states allowing them to design their own work
programs and determine who participates in them and can choose to opt out of the current
AFDC program by converting their share of AFDC payments into fixed annual block grants.
The bill is also designed to diminish the number to teenage pregnancies and illegitimate
births. It prohibits AFDC payments and housing benefits to mothers under age 18 who give
birth to out-of-wedlock children. The state has the option of extending this prohibition
to mothers ages 18, 19, and 20. The savings generated from this provision to deny AFDC
to minor mothers is returned to the states in the form of block grants to provide
services to help these young mothers who illegitimate children. The state will use the
funds for programs to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies, to promote adoption, to
establish and operate orphanages, to establish and operate residential group homes for
unwed mothers, or for any purpose the state deems appropriate. None of the funds may be
used for abortion services or abortion counseling.
The bill also includes a number of other provisions to reduce illegitimacy. While AFDC
is prohibited to mothers ages 17 and younger who have children out of wedlock, mothers
age 18 who give birth to illegitimate children must live at home in order to receive aid.
Mothers already receiving benefits will not receive an increase if additional children
are born out of wedlock.
States are allowed to establish their own work training and education programs to help
recipients move from the welfare program to paid employment as soon as possible. The
training programs require recipients to work for an average of 35 hours a week or 30
hours a week plus five hours engages in job search activities. One parent in a two
parent family is required to work 32 hours a week plus eight hours of job searching.
As long as states meet the participation requirements, the federal government will not
advise other parts of the program. States will design their own work programs and
determine who will be required to participate in them. Part of the participation
requirement is requiring a certain number of recipients to participate in the job
program. Starting in 1996, 100,000 AFDC recipients will be required to work; in 1997,
200,000 recipients will be required; in 1998, 400,000 will be required; in 1999 600,000
recipients will be required; in 2000, 900,000 will be required; and by 2001, 1.5 million
recipients will be required to work.
Identified non-parents, usually men, who receive food stamp benefits are required to
work eight hours a week for those benefits.
The bill caps the spending growth of AFDC, SSI and numerous public housing programs, and
the mandatory work program established under the bill. The cap equals the amount spent
the preceding year for these programs with an adjustment for inflation plus growth in
poverty population. The entitlement status of these programs is ended. The bill also
consolidates a number of nutrition programs into a block grant to states funded in the
first year at 95 percent of the aggregate amount of the individual programs. Programs
consolidated into the block grant include food stamps, the supplemental feeding program,
infants, children, and the school lunch and breakfast programs, among others. Under the
block grant, states will distribute food assistance to economically disadvantaged
individuals more freely.
To further reduce welfare spending, welfare assistance is denied to non-citizens, except
refugees over 75 years of age, those lawfully admitted to the U.S., or those who have
resided in the U.S. for at least five years. Emergency medical assistance will continue
to be provided to non-citizens.
The bill allows states to create their own work programs and determine who participates
in them. States can also opt our of the AFDC program and convert their AFDC payments
into a fixed annual block grant and have the option to provide new residents AFDC
benefits comparable to the level provided in the state in which they previously resided.
To help combat illiteracy, states may reduce AFDC payments by up to $75 per month to
mothers under the age of 21 who have not completed high school or earned their high
school "equivalency". Payments may also be reduced if a dependent child does not
maintain minimum school attendance.
State adoption agencies are encouraged, under the bill, to decrease the amount of time a
child must wait to be adopted. Specifically, the bill prohibits states from
discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin when placing children for
adoption.
AFDC beneficiaries who the state identifies as addicted to drugs or alcohol must enroll
in an addiction treatment program and participate in random drug testing in order to
continue receiving welfare benefits.
The bill is estimated to result in a net savings of approximately $40 billion over five
years. The denial of welfare to non-citizens saves about $22 billion, the cap on welfare
spending saves about $18 billion, the nutrition block grant saves about $11 billion, and
the requirement for paternity establishment saves about $2 billion. The costs included
in the bill are $9.9 billion for the work program and approximately $2 billion for
miscellaneous state options.
OK, personally, I don't see what the big fuss these whiny little democrats are making
over this bill. "You shouldn't be so hard on un-wed teenage mothers." Well, lets think
about this one. They're unwed, they're teenage, and they're mothers. Not a good
combination. 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. Actually, I don't
think that we're being hard enough. They're lucky to receive any benefits at all. If
this were my bill, payments to unwed teens would end altogether. It's ridiculous to have
a fifteen year old pregnant and out of school sitting at home sucking up government
dough. The government isn't punishing them. They've punished themselves. If anything
the government is giving these kids an incentive to be more responsible. Welfare is a
crutch. And people use it even after their broken leg has healed.
And what about those who are not legitimately in this country? Thousands upon thousands
of immigrants enter this country each year, because they know in America, they can
receive benefits without even becoming a citizen. This needs to end right now. American
citizens hard at work each day should not have to waste their tax dollars on the illegal
Perez family from just over the border who don't speak a word of English nor contribute
any of their money to this country. Illegal immigrants under no circumstance should
receive any money of any kind. They do not belong to this country nor do they contribute
toward it.
As I stated in Congress in Action, I work at Genovese. I make sixty-five dollars a
week. I SHOULD be making eighty, but fifteen dollars of my money each week goes to the
federal government to give to some illegal family or single mother. I pay for this
family's clothing. I pay for this family's food. I pay for this family's home. But of
course, my fifteen dollars a week is not enough to pay for all of the family's expenses.
So you, and your family have to pay more money each year so that some other family
doesn't have to. I'm seventeen years old. I am going to an Ivy League university next
year. I can't afford to spend fifteen dollars on some illegal family in Texas or some
single irresponsible mother. And do you know what the tragic part is? This "family"
does not give a single dime back to the government. And for illegal immigrants, that
same government which gives them millions of OUR dollars a year, doesn't even acknowledge
that they exist. Somehow, THAT doesn't sound very fair to me.
And in fear or their payments ending, a great number of legal immigrants have rushed to
turn in their applications for U.S. citizenship. At no time in history has the number of
applicants for U.S. citizenship been so large. In Los Angeles County alone, it's
quadrupled in just two years. "In '94 I think we were running about 75,000 applications
a year. Last year, we ran about 175,000, and we're looking at about 300,000 this year,"
says Richard Rogers, who works in the Los Angeles branch of the Immigration and
Naturalization service. Thanks to The Personal Responsibility Act, hundreds of thousands
more non-citizens are applying to officially be a member of our country, and in turn
contribute towards it. Many crybaby liberals believe these "harsh" laws make non
citizens worry about their benefits. Good. If they don't give or do anything FOR our
government, they SHOULD worry if the government decides not to give them anything. That
worry is what pushes them to become a part of our nation, and be a REAL, tax paying
American citizens. Only until then can they at least expect some benefits.
Limiting AFDC payment by $75 to those who haven't completed high school or gained a high
school equivalency seemed way liberal to me. High school drop-out is one of the big
reasons for the enormous about of money welfare consumes each year. If you don't have at
least a high school education, you will find it tough to land a job that will support
yourself, let alone a family as well. School keeps kids off of the streets, and out of
trouble with drugs, sex and pregnancies- things that will run them right out of school
and right onto the welfare payroll. Democrats love making a big sob story out of welfare
"victims." It makes me truly sick. Want to hear a sob story? Me hardly seeing my
family for four years because I was too busy studying, and involving myself in the school
and community, bettering other's lives, so that I may improve myself as a person, go on
to a good school, and make a success of myself. And the federal government didn't give
me a cent. They shouldn't have to. So if I shouldn't get paid for doing more than what
I am have to, or am supposed to do, why should some pregnant, crackhead, sixteen year
old girl get paid every week for doing what she's NOT supposed to do? There's a sob
story.
And spare me the argument that drug addicts are victims deserving a safety net, or that
at least their children are. That mentality, in psychological circles is called
"enabling"-making it possible for chronically maladjusted people to indulge their self
destructive behavior at the expense of themselves and others. What "enabling" actually
does is help destroy the people you ought to be trying to aid. It is irresponsible.
Stop and think. You have people on welfare who are drug addicts. You give them cash.
What do you think happens? They buy drugs. If there is any money left they MAY (1 in a
million chance) use it as intended. If not, they fall back on their main means for
scoring. This means stealing or selling their bodies to get more of a fix, or just to
survive and make ends meet. This is how it really is on the streets for those welfare
recipients who are also drug addicts. So why not do them a favor and say you can't be a
drug addict and a welfare recipient at the same time. Being an addict doesn't
necessarily mean you are a complete idiot. A substantial percentage of them aren't happy
about their addictions, but they need a big push to break their dependency cycle. The
dumbest thing in the world is to give an addict cash. So why should our welfare system
do that in the name of doing good? Why not make it universally clear that welfare
benefits will only go to people who, among other things, can pass a drug test at the time
of application, and at random periods thereafter? Why shouldn't welfare policy
discourage drug addiction? God knows that we can't rely on the President, seeing as how
the public has re-elected a man whose first presidency showed a doubling of teen drug
use, as well as a leader who admitted to smoking pot and said he would do it again.
Cutting off welfare to those with a drug addiction has nothing to do with individual
liberties. The individual is free to choose between continuing addiction or continuing
welfare.
And as for the time restraint..why is it even 5 years that they can stay on AFDC? One
is quite sufficient. Do you know how long it took me to get my job at Genovese??? Five
days, not five years! And I am not even out of high school. It pays above minimum wage,
the full time benefits are excellent, there is not a single reason why welfare recipients
could not hold a job such as that. Yet year after year we continue to find them at home
waiting for Bob the mailman to deliver their welfare check. Pathetic. That is the only
work to describe it. No, perhaps pathetic and sickening.
And are we forgetting something? There exists something called the TENTH AMENDMENT!!
Those powers not given to Congress, nor specifically enumerated, are reserved for the
states and respectfully to the people. The powers specifically enumerated to Congress
are found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. The only facet of this Article
that the most loose construction liberal mind MIGHT be able to construe as a reason for
increasing welfare is that "The Congress shall have Power to....provide for the common
Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Providing for the general welfare of
America means ensure that it's citizen's lives are protected, not spend hundreds of
billions of dollars on the welfare system. Welfare is not a responsibility of the
federal government. It is one of the states, or respectively, the people.. The American
voters sent a clear message on that November 8th of 1994. They want to see a positive
change in government. Many of these same voters are pointing a finger at welfare as a
perfect example of big government at work wasting taxpayer money. Congress was able to
push through to legislation that greatly enhances the fight against the welfare trap.
Yet it is not the end of the war. There are still several more battles to go until we
may sign a peace treaty.
|