Misuse
of Welfare in American Low Class Citizens
Welfare misuse in the United States is more common than
any average person may think. Welfare is defined as a procedure or social
effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people
in need (Webster). As defined, welfare is a system formed by the government.
The system takes money from working individuals in the form of taxes and
distributes it to assist the underprivileged. Though this effort is incredible
in many aspects, it is misused and abused by many receiving it. This misuse is encouraging many who do not
need welfare to apply for it because the stipulations to receive assistance are
minimal. There have been many plans to stop the misuse and to create a reform,
but none of these have been thoroughly carried out. Welfare, though it can be
good, is misused by many low class recipients and is too easily obtained for
those merely looking for a way to be lazy and avoid getting a paying job.
Welfare
is simply a way for Americans that are not financially stable, by their own
choice or by uncontrollable circumstances, to be provided with government
assisted funding without any effort on their part. The system to receive
welfare is so simple; any person could get welfare simply by not exerting
themselves into various job fields. Food stamps are one of the most common
assistance programs closely related to welfare.
This application process can be easily fabricated. Even though the
resources and conditions a person live by and with make a large impact on the
application process, records could easily be falsified to make a citizen more
eligible. After the citizen has submitted an application, they must be
interviewed to see if their conditions require them to receive government
assistance. According to the Social Security Publication website posted by the
Unites State government, the only things necessary for an interview are as
follows: Identification such as a driver’s license, state ID, birth certificate
or alien card; Proof of income for each member of your household, such as pay
stubs or records that show if Social Security, SSI or a pension for each member
of your household is received; Proof of how much you spend for child care; Rent
receipts or proof of your mortgage payments; Records of your utility costs; and
Medical bills for those members of your household age 60 or older, and for
those who receive government payments such as Social Security or SSI because
they are disabled (Social Security Administration). In short, if a person
overspends on bills and rent and do not own excessive amounts of goods, they
would qualify simply because they’ve exceeded their monthly expenses and do not
own many items.
There
have been attempts in the past to form a welfare reform. A reporter,
Christopher Conte, who has done many articles for The Wall Street Journal on health care, interviewed Todd McGee, a
specialist for the Department of Employment Services. During the interview,
McGee states his thoughts about welfare reform saying, “Welfare reform means
nothing else but 'Get off welfare and get a job.' (Conte)” As stated in the
previous quote, if a welfare reform was instated, many would be kicked off
welfare and would be forced to get a job. The peak of welfare recipients topped
the charts in 1994 with a whopping 14.2 million recipients then began a steady
decline over the course of the next seven years (Glazer). The welfare reform
was becoming a widely discussed topic in 2001, when the amount of welfare
recipients had dropped by 5.1 million over the span of those seven years,
leaving the amount of recipients still at 9.1 million. The reform was not a
successful venture, however. It has done nothing to help the government with
the amount of spending on welfare in the past years because many are still
applying.
Some
argue that welfare is a good thing because it helps the wellbeing of truly
desperate and deserving individuals. If an individual were truly desperate,
then there would be no controversy over welfare. But how does the government
know if an individual is truly desperate? Many also believe that welfare allows
needy citizens the financial security needed to carry on with a normal life and
also helps the individuals to support their families during difficult times.
Joseph Westfall, an expert on the subject at hand and also an expert on social
criticism writes, “Freedom means nothing if people do not have the ability to
exercise it. To do that, they need a minimum level of well-being (Westfall).”
This source is very open about the pros and cons of welfare. This explanation
of a benefit of welfare is the only one that justifies the use of welfare
because the source implies that individuals need a mere sense of financial
security, not a reason to remain jobless. On another note, Westfall also argues
that welfare does not make individuals less motivated to work; it only allows
them to become a more active member in their community. This claim is
completely bogus. If the opportunity is presented that an individual does not
have to apply themselves to contribute to the community, they won’t. They are
given too much free time and feel that if they are financially supported, they
don’t owe anything to their community. They have too much time on their hands
to trash community facilities, not allowing working citizens to utilize them on
their days off. Financial stability does many things for an individual. This
situation applies closely to the metaphor, “if you build it, they will come.”
In other words, if you give a person welfare, they will feel financially
stable. They will not have any aspiration to search the job field for openings,
only motivation to continue doing nothing but receiving money for it. This can
also lead to a feeling of entitlement, leading to many crimes. Michael Tanner,
a director at the Department of Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato
Institute proves that a 50% increase in the monthly value of food stamps led to
a 117% increased crime rate among young black men (Tanner).
Welfare in rural areas is often misused. Working at a
grocery store for many years, I have been witness to the misuses of the most
common form of welfare, food stamps. To be specific, a family that comes in
frequently and spends at least $100 on overpriced, name-brand goods. They spend
all of their food stamps on this food without even thinking about their two
year old that yearns for warm milk and nutritious food, such as vegetables and
fruits. They do not even portion out their spending to last them the whole
month, they spend it all at one time so if they happen to over eat or waste any
of the food they bought, they will have no extra money to spend on food to
replace what had been used or wasted. In an exclusive interview with Amy
Snyder, a woman who experiences the misuse of welfare first hand, I learned
that many people she holds close are abusing their government assistance. “I
see people every day wasting their food stamps on overpriced foods, or buying
food to return it and get cash in hand. They spend this extra cash to supply
themselves with cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol, even though they have small
children to support.” This source also
states, “I’m a working class business woman. If something would happen to
someone in my family, I own too much to be eligible for government assistance.
They would suggest I sell everything I’ve worked my entire life for before I
would be considered. That’s asking too much. I’ve paid into the system my whole
life and they won’t even support me enough to help me feed my child if worse
comes to worse (Snyder).” This source has not only built her business from the
ground up, but has also experienced many pains with family members abusing
their welfare. This family member has a family of four and receives about $650
per month and the prominent male of the household, David (Amy’s brother) has a
part time job that allows him to make another $250 minimum per week. The majority of this money is spent
completely on drugs and alcohol. When they have spent all their welfare and
David has blown his entire paycheck, he runs to Amy for assistance. “I see
where all his money goes, yet he feels I’m still going to give him more money
to spend on himself and his addictions rather than feed his four year old
daughter, even after my paycheck has already contributed to his monthly welfare
stipend. (Snyder)”
The
most recent attempt to regulate welfare is the welfare experiments. Many states
have been imposing new stipulations to the welfare systems. Susan Kellam, a
pioneer in welfare experiments shows many guidelines for different states and
situations.
In Maryland, families can lose some AFDC
benefits if they fail to immunize their children or to keep them in school and
if they don't pay the rent on time. In Ohio, financial penalties are used to
promote school attendance among pregnant and parenting teenagers on welfare. In
California, Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, is attempting an across-the-board
cut in AFDC benefits. In New Jersey, a two-year-old “child exclusion” rule, or
family cap, denies additional cash aid to parents who have children while
receiving benefits. Vermont cuts off benefits after 30 months and places
recipients in public service or community jobs. Utah provides a one-time cash
payment -- in lieu of monthly checks -- along with access to child care, health
care and other services. Oregon plans to replace welfare checks and food stamps
with commensurate salaries in private sector jobs. They would be required to
develop policies that moved far larger numbers of people from welfare to work
than past efforts. Welfare recipients' participation in work must be tracked.
Some states would experiment with a CWEP-type work-for-welfare plan while
others would be expected to implement time-limited welfare followed by a
public/private jobs programs. All states must improve their child-support
enforcement systems. Each program had to have a comprehensive evaluation plan.
Federal matching funds for these programs would be increased to 90% or more of
state contributions (Kellam).
The experiments that
scientists like Susan Kellam are performing are currently making a severe
impact on the use and abuse of welfare. Posting specific guidelines make
recipients more aware of what they have and the lines they must not cross. If
there were stipulations like these in every state, welfare abuse would be cut
back almost entirely. Those who do not need welfare would not receive it, those
who misuse welfare would no longer have as much freedom as they’ve previously
felt, which would leave those who need welfare because of an injury or a
devastating happening prior to their application for welfare.
Welfare misuse not only impacts those in settings where
welfare is abused, but it also impacts every citizen working. Working citizens
are taxed on their income. These taxes are deducted from an employee’s usual
paycheck. The more people the government has to support, the larger the
deductions will be from working class citizens’ paychecks. The IRS states, “Under
Q&A-6(a) of § 1.419-1T of the Temporary Income Tax Regulations, the qualified
direct cost of a welfare benefit fund for any taxable year of the fund is the aggregate
amount that would have been allowable as a deduction to the employer for
benefits provided by the fund during the year (Clary).” If the money deducted was used solely to
support the underprivileged and deserving, it would be a completely different
issue. The fact that this system is allowing so many underserving citizens to
begin receiving assistance and also so many to misuse welfare is making the
entire system seem like a farce.
In conclusion, welfare in the United States is being
misused entirely too much. Many are realizing the simplicity to the application
process; they are altering their lifestyles to fit the credentials, which leads
to more applicants and ultimately more welfare recipients. These Americans
using and abusing the system will cause our taxes to significantly rise, and
could ultimately encourage the children of our children to do nothing with
their lives because they know they will be supported one way or another. There
have been many attempts at reforms and altercations, but none are absolutely
effective because no matter what, someone will always find a way around the
system, bending and altering it to fit their exact specifications. Welfare, if
not contained and regulated, will become a significant problem to this entire
country. A simple solution to halt the misuse of food stamps is as simple as
the government placing items in a grocery store solely for the consumption of
those on welfare. The prices could be cheaper and the items could be
non-returnable to avoid the “cash-in-hand” switchback after the returns. These
changes would stop recipients from buying drugs or buying brand name foods and
wasting all their food stamps. The impact rising welfare taxes will have on the
working class could be so massive, some may quit their jobs, and some may adopt
numerous children they cannot take care of to be placed on welfare themselves.
Others may falsify records to pass the initial application, and then completely
fabricate all of the answers given in the interview period. In order for
welfare to become regulated, the government must see what this country is
making of their welfare system. They must open their eyes to the corruptions
inside the program that can only be repaired by restarting the system as a
whole, with stricter guidelines and more monitoring of the system itself.
Works Cited
Clary, Betty J. "Treatment of Funded
Welfare." IRS Publications. IRS, 5 June 2007. Web. 15 July
2012. <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-65.pdf>.
Conte, Christopher. "Welfare, Work and the States." CQ Researcher. CQ Press, 6 Dec.
1996. CQ Researcher. Web.
28 June 2012. <http://library.cqpress.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1996120600&type=hitlist&num=9>.
Glazer, Sarah. "Welfare Reform." CQ Researcher. CQ Press, 3 Aug.
2001. CQ Researcher. Web.
28 June 2012.
<http://library.cqpress.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001080300&type=hitlist&num=5>.
Kellam, Susan. "Welfare Experiments." CQ Researcher. CQ Press, 16
Sept. 1994. CQ Researcher.
Web. 29 June 2012.
<http://library.cqpress.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1994091600&type=hitlist&num=3#top>.
Snyder, Amy. Personal interview. 15 July 2012.
"Social Welfare." Merriam-Webster.
2012. N. pag. Web. 15 July 2012.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20welfare>.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Facts. Social Security Administration (SSA), 14 May 2012. Web. 30
June 2012. <http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10101.html/#a0=2>.
Tanner, Michael. "Relationship Between the Welfare State
and Crime." Individual Liberty, Free Markets, And Peace. CATO
Institute, 7 June 1995. Web. 15 July 2012.
<http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html>.
Westfall, Joseph. "The Welfare of the Community." Welfare: Social and Individual
Responsibility. Santa Clara University, 3 Sept. 1997. Web. 30 June 2012.
<http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/welfare.html>.
