Misuse of Welfare-Argumentative Essay

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>.