There are a few things concerning welfare that have occurred to me. The most recent involves the idea of compensation.
Why do people live through the taxation of their neighbors? I haven't really thought of all the reasons that people use welfare, neither have I considered the legitimacy of the various cases, but, I do feel that generally, governmental welfare promotes a slothful unproductive lifestyle. There are many public services that need to be done. There are dirty highways, decaying parks, trashy slums, etc. It seems appropriate that if welfare is going to be issued under due circumstances, then a comparable compensation should be made though the organization of service teams, made up of welfare recipients, working to repay their fellow-citizens, on whose backs they're living.
Welfare must not be handled federally, but should be turned over to the states where, at the state level, delegations and arrangements can be made to handle welfare more prudently. Perhaps this will require the appointment of welfare officers that recipients must coordinate with to maintain their eligibility. These officers will ensure that recipients make compensatory efforts and that their reliance on welfare funds are temporary.
Good idea, although making it a state run program would create inequalities between states leading to some states being full of people on welfare because they offered a better package. I think it still needs to be administered federally, but the idea of giving back is great, how to implement it would be tough though.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that it would cause inequalities among the states. Those states that supported perpetual welfare users and failed to get them back on their feet might become overburdened with the influx of users and thus have to revise their policy such as to make their program more manager and less appealing. In other words, this very well might phase out welfare done at a governmental level and make survival a personal responsibility.
ReplyDelete