Restoring welfare to work requirements
Published September 11, 2015
By Tom Campbell
by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, September 11, 2015.
“He that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled),” Captain John Smith told the 1609 Jamestown colonists. It wasn’t a new idea, in fact it dates back to at least the first century when the Apostle Paul wrote the church in Thessalonica, “For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”
Our nation was founded on the concept that we are sturdy, hardworking people, responsible for ourselves but also to our neighbors. We have long been willing to help those who could not help themselves and in that spirit of compassion allowed government programs to provide that help, especially during The Great Depression.
We grew increasingly concerned that some who were able to help themselves had become too dependent on government assistance. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed welfare to work legislation into law. Workfare, as it was called, proclaimed that those who were able had to work to continue what had become commonly known as welfare. Many predicted that poverty and hunger would soar as people left the welfare rolls, but just the opposite happened. The welfare rolls dropped from 5 to 2 million, largely among those who had never been married.
There is nothing wrong with asking those in the wagon who can, to get out and help pull with the rest of us, former Texas Senator Phil Gramm explained. There is strong evidence that work is essential in helping establish a person’s sense of self worth and dignity. We cannot allow our compassion and generosity to move us to lessen the requirements or qualifications, or attempt to justify why some aren’t working. But we must also avoid the trap of calling those who receive these benefits worthless or lazy, as some have done.
Workfare was a great concept and worked pretty well for more than 20 years but the Great Recession of 2008 knocked the props from under this success story. Unemployment soared and those who could not find work increasingly turned to government help. More than 40 states, including North Carolina, received waivers from the requirement that food stamp recipients must work, volunteer or be enrolled in job training programs in order to receive more than three months of benefits in a three-year period.
The Department of Health and Human Services has announced our state will begin restoring the work requirement in counties over the next six months, affecting more than 100,000 current recipients. Maine reinstated these work provisions last year and the number of recipients dropped from 12,000 to 2,500.
If we truly want to help people off “the public dole” and onto a road of self-sufficiency our legislature must help by restoring the earned income tax credit they eliminated several years ago. This is often the difference between making it or not to lower income citizens.
We can debate what constitutes an “able” person or even what qualifies as work, but we strongly support the principle that those who can work should do so. We also recognize that some need help in the transition to self-sufficiency and North Carolina would be an uncaring state if we were not willing to provide that help.
September 11, 2015 at 9:26 am
bruce stanley says:
To start back up the Earned Income Tax Credit in order to offset tighter unemployment benefits, isn't that merely substituting one form of welfare for another? All working citizens need to pay some amount of income tax otherwise they will always vote for politicians who reward them with gifts from the treasury.
September 11, 2015 at 2:26 pm
Tom Hauck says:
Thank you for your excellent column.
Just imagine what would have happened to those suffering in the Kansas and Oklahoma "Dust Bowl" if the government's policy was to give them money -- as it is today. They, their children, and grandchildren would still be there getting money from the government. Instead, with no handouts they had to leave and look for work in California or other places. They started a new and much better life because they had to feed themselves.
September 12, 2015 at 10:40 am
Norm Kelly says:
In order for people to get jobs, the jobs must be there. And people must be willing to take those jobs.
How do we get people to take jobs.
Couple thoughts. First, we start with making government handouts less generous. Setting time limits to receive 'benefits' is one way. Setting limits on the amount of benefits, in a dollar value, is another way. At the same time, we need to stop penalizing success (from a monetary perspective; cuz there are lots of types of success; it's the wealth factor that irritates libs and makes them want to penalize financial success).
Central planners getting out of the way of state and local level government and business is another way. This is a MAJOR way to get people working. Perfect example comes straight from the Democratic Socialist Party of the US. It's called limits on legal and illegal immigration. We've had fewer jobs since the Great Recession. Labor participation rates have reached virtual record lows. What's the Democratic Socialist Party solution? Forgive illegal immigrant law-breakers. Allow illegal immigrant law-breakers to become citizens with proper ID, legally take jobs from American citizens, qualify for government benefits, and vote for Democratic Socialist Party members.
So, can anyone, even a member of the Democratic Socialist Party, explain how increasing the number of workers without increasing the number of jobs, while maintaining the same level of government give-aways, will improve the economy for anyone? Without central planners forcing businesses to increase the minimum wage for unskilled laborers, how will increasing the number of low-skill workers, essentially flooding the market of minimum wage workers, improve the lives of low-skill workers?
Of course, since this question is unanswerable, I will not hold my breath waiting for an answer. How do I know this question is unanswerable? Simple. I listen to politicians of the Democratic Socialist Party. They can't explain how unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. They can't explain how taxing medical device manufacturers on Gross Income (instead of profits) encourages MORE manufacturing within our borders. They can't explain how throwing more money at the VA Health care system improves care for vets instead of allowing vets to get medical care at the closest, most convenient location. They can't explain how taking over 1/6th of the US economy is good either. That's what the Democratic Socialists call Obamacare. What they have actually told us is step 1 in a Single Payer system. Which is lib-speak for Socialized Medicine. Except 'Single Payer' sounds better than 'socialized medicine'. Probably because everywhere that has tried Socialized Medicine has worse care than the US does. So, to make it more palatable to us, Democratic Socialist party members refer to it as 'Single Payer'. Our very own K told us before she voted for Obamascare that it didn't go far enough; she wanted to implement Single Payer all in one huge step. So don't tell me the plan isn't to get to Socialized Medicine. Even the current occupier has told us that's his goal. And the Democratic Socialist party has been pushing for 'Single Payer' since the 1920's.
So, exactly what part of Central Planning or Socialism promises to make anything better for anyone? What we are told is that the level of government debt is insufficient to generate general wealth for all citizens. They tell us that if we just let them spend the amount of money they choose, on what they choose, with whom they choose, the economy will actually make millionaires of everyone in the country, legal and illegal. And somehow, the Democratic Socialist party also wants us to believe that allowing Islamic Terrorist states to get nuclear weapons is actually GOOD for us.
There doesn't seem to be ANY part of the Democratic Socialist party's plan that is good for the US. So, how about trying the old way of 'if you don't work, you don't eat'. With limited exceptions. Bet that swells the roles of the employed. At the same time that we eliminate illegal aliens and stop referring to them as 'undocumented aliens'. It's time we put the PC speak of Democratic Socialist pols aside and ALL start speaking truth. Getting central planners out of our daily lives will go a long way in making all our lives better!
