Response to Begging in America

No one loves a good rant more than me, and these days there is plenty to rant about. But it needs to be an insightful and factual rant. To rant for the sake of ranting accomplishes nothing. Neither does ranting for the purpose to incite the people with unsubstantiated babble. Recently there is one doing so on the subject of welfare. I responded in an article to dispel some of it, but he has returned and has now jumped of the cliffs with his rhetoric.

While sticking to the Democratic talking points like glue, he is enjoying blaming it all on the wealthy and the Republicans. He cites an antiquated study and a blog which is someone else’s opinion to try and convince you his opinion is solid and that it is based in facts.

The writer hangs his hat on his strongest argument being the greed of the wealthy. I agree that greed is driving the problem out control, but for a different reason than the wealthy. Webster’s says this about Greed: Intense and selfish desire for something. I agree that there are those who are wealthy that fit that description, but I am sure it is not many. On the other hand, I believe there are those on welfare who also fit the description of greed. They are intense and selfish for someone to take care of them, they look for freebies. Like with the wealthy, it is not everyone on welfare that believes that, but it does exist...

The question that keeps coming up is should we have welfare programs and do they do any good. ABSOLUTLY! As long as those programs are not abused. They can serve a greater good to help those who go through hard times. But that brings us to the problem. People are allowing the ideals of the program interfere with reality of what is going on.

What is welfare, when did it start. The welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. It started with limited programs. After several changes to the legislation in the 1960, aid could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaid,food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. Immediately it became noticed that the program was being abused. At this point the regulations for qualification were easy and benefits were limitless. The Welfare Reform act of 1996 aimed to change all that by changing what was once considered an open-ended right, into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs. Also in 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed. This act gave control of the welfare system back to the states. Because welfare is no longer under the control of the federal government, there are basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. One of those was to impose a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance. If the states do not meet those standards, the Federal Government will cut funding to that state. Following these changes, millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced. The programs reforms were working.

Ok AV, why the history lesson on welfare. Well, simple, one needs to understand history to understand numbers. For example, the study Pcunix keeps referring to is the first study AFTER the 1996 Welfare Reform Act to try and prove his point that single woman do not stay on welfare for more than twelve months. The reason it shows single Mom’s short stay is because it was the first year of statistics and in that first 12 months, more welfare Mom’s were leaving the program than entering it, the direct result of the find a job part now in the program. Also, there was a new block grant program as part of the Welfare Bill. To participate in this part has a time limit of 24 months. Now a welfare recipient can get access to this, use it for the two year period and at the conclusion still is on the welfare, they just are no longer eligible for that short term grant. You can read the why and actual numbers as to why this program came about for single Mom’s here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:1:./temp/~c104uQa7K7:e19833: Therefore using those numbers are not reflective of the entire welfare system, but just of that program. So of course, a statement of “they collect benefits for only 12 or 24 months” is only true if they participate in the program, but again has nothing to do with the overall picture. But to use that study and make the claim that study also reveals the current trend is inaccurate. Numbers and trends change year to year and there are factors that affect results. In the case of the 1996 study, the results showing woman not staying on the program for very long was a direct result of the Welfare Reform Act forcing people to find work and get off the program. That was a good thing and the direct point to the program, to help, not be a lifestyle. Today however, 58% of all the current welfare ranks have been collecting welfare for over 5 years. The largest growing section is of course single Mom’s. Of course this is a direct result of the failing economy under this administration.

Now as for what people are eligible for and the amounts they can receive, there are a lot of variables to determine the exact dollar amount awarded in each category. Single, married, no children, children and how many are a few of the obvious criteria. Let’s make it clear; even getting the biggest award possible is not living a grand lifestyle. The program is designed to help you on a temporary basis, not support you. But there are those who want to be supported and those numbers are growing. To not recognize or deny this is a major mistake. Welfare spending under Obama has risen 48% over what it was in the last year of the Bush budget. 2010 spending on welfare was 953 billion dollars. The fiscal 2011 numbers are not out yet as they are being audited, but it is expected that welfare will cross the 1 trillion dollar mark.

To not admit the abuses in the system is also a mistake. Ignoring them creates a future dilemma. What will happen to those who cannot get help because funding has run out? I agree to be compassionate, but where will the compassion be when we cannot help those who need it.

In the article referenced, Begging in America, the author Pcunix makes many claims and uses interesting documentation to try and back his opinion. We already discussed part 1996 report and why it was not appropriate. He also makes this claim: “In fact, study after study has shown that not to be true. A 1996 study showed that 56 percent of AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years”. In fact, that quote he used was a blog from Lovemiiorhatemii posted on 8/11/2008 at 1:01pm as his source to try and prove his numbers to be correct. In fact he just cut and pasted the paragraph. The shame was those were not actual numbers but were projections of what was believed the result of the Welfare Reform Act would result. By the way, the results while good were not that good. Only 60% was the actual number achieved at the end of the four year period. He then claims that the right is screaming that welfare is an epidemic. Of course that was never said. Pcunix then claims that in reality the fraud is very small and posts a link to prove it. Once more the link takes to a blogger on wordpress.com named spritzophernia posted on January 2011. If you go there and read it, even that writer claims his numbers are just HIS GEUSS. Despite that, Pcunix used them as gospel. And finally, Pcunix also made the following statement: “Since one of the right wingers took the bait I will tell you the rest of the story. Other than welfare for children, most states NOW LIMIT the time any one person can receive welfare, both in one stretch and as lifetime benefits”. Sorry to inform him that the 1996 Welfare reform act was the trigger for time limits on welfare, not some recent made up action that states are doing on their own.

Earlier I posted a link I hope people will read. It is easy for some writers to just spout off on a subject; after all we all have our opinions. I like to hear other people’s opinions, it helps me to understand where people are, why they believe what they do as I research for reasonable conclusions to issues. I am sure Pcunix means no harm, but to just make comments and to twist information without presenting all of it or taking it out of context does not serve the better good. We all deserve better than that. That is at the basis for the problems we have in Congress. People with narrow visions, not presenting the entire picture and addressing accordingly. The welfare debate is one such subject. It stirs emotions because it tugs at our heart strings; we want to help those in need. But it also tugs on other strings because of those just milking the system. I get it though, we all wish we could go through life, not work, vacation every day, and have no bills to pay for. It is a cool fantasy, that that is what it is, just a fantasy. We need to all be responsible people, and as such those who are have no respect for those who do not. We all know that welfare is needed, both sides of the aisle agree on that. Whether or not there is a problem or abuse or if it should be a lifestyle is where the issue becomes a debate. Here are a few facts the link tells us, by the way, notice this is not a blog or some ones opinion, these are facts from the US Government:

· In 1992, only 54 percent of single-parent families with children had a child support order established and, of that 54 percent, only about one-half received the full amount due.

· The number of individuals receiving aid to families with dependent children (in this section referred to as `AFDC') has more than tripled since 1965.(remember this was written 1996 before the reforms)

· While the number of children receiving AFDC benefits increased nearly threefold between 1965 and 1992, the total number of children in the United States aged 0 to 18 has declined by 5.5 percent.

· The increase in the number of children receiving public assistance is closely related to the increase in births to unmarried women, increasing more than three fold.

· 50 percent of all births by the year 2015 will be out-of-wedlock( while we are not at 2015 yet, currently the rate is 43%, looks like the prediction of 1996 will ring true)

Those few points show the need for welfare, but why it needs reform as well. To also deny existing fraud in the system hurts those in the future who will need help and hurts the taxpayers funding the system. I wrote in my other response article about one way on how easy it is to fraudulently get cash out of the food stamp card. That was only one of many ways to scam the system. But to me, the biggest scam is those who do not need it in the first place and the refusal to admit that statement is true. Why is it so hard to admit there are those looking for a free ride? Why is it so hard to see all those who want everything given to them? Even in the comment section of his article, there was someone who refuses to look for a job. Why should people take care of that guy for the rest of his life? I know times are tough and he may not get the job he wants or it may not pay what he wants. But at least a working person is making and effort, and if that person needs our help to get by, we should give it. Do you not agree? I also say, it does not matter how or why he fell on hard times, let’s help get him on his feet, let’s help him move forward again. Nothing wrong with that, but not five years later, or ten years later, not without some kind of effort on the part of the person. In this instance, it is clear the commenter does not want to work, he gives lame excuses. First he says he cannot get food stamps because to do so he would have to commit fraud. What kind of fraud, well it seems it offends this man to have to look for a job. Since he does not want to look for a job and that is a requirement for collecting welfare, he therefore concludes he would be committing fraud saying he was looking for a job when he has not intentions of doing so. Therefore he will pass on the food stamps. He talks about not wanting to ride his bicycle to look for a job because they are five (5) miles away. Then later says he cannot get a job because he cannot get there. HMMM. What part of “I have a bicycle” did I miss? Is that the best mode of transportation, no it is not. Will it take you to a job so you can work, make money and purchase a vehicle to get your butt around, YES. AV, you are being too critical, no I am not. No one knows more than me how hard times are, I wrote an article about it. There are some really hit hard areas in this country, like say Cleveland Ohio. But this guy does not live there; his bio says he lives in Kaufmann Texas. Texas, the state with one if not the best employment rate in the nation. No one in Texas is not working unless that person does not want to work. The Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex is doing great, not quite booming as it was, but is doing great. Construction abound, new stores, restaurants, industry, corporate companies relocating here in record pace, one can get a job anywhere. Oh and one more thing, this is not the dark ages, there is a public transportation system out there. Dam, I am taking away his reasons for not working. After all, in most cases when you ask someone not working or those long time welfare collectors, all you get are excuses. Now I am not talking of those who just lost their jobs due to the down turning economy or those who recently are receiving help. I am talking about those lifers on the program.

I do enjoy a good article provided it is an honest assessment of the topic. Trying to influence people to believe an issue as you see it with false information is just disingenuous and show the true character of that person. Having an opinion is one thing, misleading is another. I could care less if your views are left or right, being closed minded solves nothing. Refusing to acknowledge an issue or someone’s ideals because you do not believe is inherently dangerous. Being of one mind and forcing everyone to believe like you spawn things like a dictatorship and racism. We can all agree those do not represent any good or serve and decent purpose. Open minds, open lines of communication and respect will go a long way and maybe should be the goal as we enter 2013. That is my American View, tell me yours.

American View© encourages comments. In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. This blog and its contents are copyright © protected, all rights reserved