Issue 64 Radical Welfare reform April 26, 2013

This issue builds off of "Issue number 63 Welfare to work April 25, 2013." In this case it goes one step further in altering the welfare system. I actually originally heard of this idea on an episode of John Stossel by one of his guests the day after I learned about welfare to work at an event hosted by the Manhattan Institute. Stossel's episode also covered welfare to work, but his guests went a step further.

The radical reform: The ending of all cash welfare including food and housing assistance with the sole exceptions being the welfare for the elderly and the physically and mentally disabled. Yes, the guest wanted to switch the focus of all welfare to a "welfare to work: program for all able bodied Americans.

How it would work: To make it easier for companies to higher these individuals with less job skills, the money that was going to the cash based welfare system would instead go to companies. Essentially, the same amount of money would still be dished out, but instead it would come from an employer for the work you did. Additional money could be granted of course by the employer for how well the person does. Once the company can afford to pay for that employee due to the company being able to expand for the cheap labor (compliments to government paying their wages) the person will be kicked off the welfare roll and completely supported by their own efforts and the company they are working for. This is another form and much more comprehensive version of welfare to work that for the most part I agree with. A person who earns a check is less likely to abuse the welfare system than a person who is given free cash every month.

But what about if there are no open positions?: To back up the other part of the reform, when there is no available job in the area, the welfare recipients are put to work in other capacities. This part of the idea comes from the Depression Era's "Work Progress Administration." Its role will be exactly the same as when it was originally created, getting people to work and earning a pay check. In this case, these people will help build and maintain parks, clean streets, refurbish bridges and other similar jobs. The salary they would get would pay for the basics like food, clothing and shelter. The main thing though is that this will be an earned income and not some artificial hand out. To ensure that these people will want to move up in the world there will be no option for retirement. Or, at least, there will be no opportunity to unionize and get a pension. They are there to gain job experience and work for a hard days pay until they find something better. This of course will be using the basis of welfare to work to aid them in finding a better job.

The part I did not like: For those who refuse to work, but have children the children will have to be taken away. I don't like the idea of ever separating a family, but the issue comes down to a parent refusing to work. This is the equivalent in this system of saying I will not feed my kid. As a result, the child would be sent off to the orphanage and be adopted by any willing family who passes through the qualification process. In the interim between adoption and being taken away, government funded institutions operated by volunteers (properly vetted to ensure they are not bad people) and religious organizations will care for the children as a form of non profit. Children must be kept safe and that is the logic behind this part of the reform. Though, I would defiantly include a window of opportunity for the child to be reunited with their parents.  If the parents are working toward improving their lives and trying to make enough money to support them and their children then they should be able to get their children back. If this is the case the institution will not allow for the child to be adopted but rather have the child as a long term guest until the parent(s) can take them back home. This would be the only way I would accept this part of the program.

Conclusion: Overall, the idea is radical especially for America and Europe. There are people and institutions that make a lot of money off the cash based system we have now as well as people who in general fear change. I however, support any change that gets people out of welfare and become self-sufficient. This is an idea to try out and see if it will work. If it does, use it and change the system, if not see if anything can be changed to make it work and if even that fails then put the idea out to pasture.  Remember the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled are not affected by any of this.  The only ones affected are those people who are able bodied and are capable of working.