Whats unconstitutional? Cutting people off welfare?
Only on certain kinds of welfare are those conditions imposed, and then only under certain conditions. Don’t forget welfare also encompasses WIC, food stamps, Head Start, “free” healthcare, “free” school breakfast, “free” school lunch, and dozens of other means tested programs.
Got a cite?
Isn’t quite a large chunk of the Federal budget spent on welfare?
Once again, food stamps ARE welfare, as are a host of other means tested programs.
Make up your mind. Is Medicaid and other welfare programs a major drain, or
You want the welfare to be contingent on the parent’s behavior but the child will be the one suffering. An illegitimate (to use your word) child did not ask to be born to a mother who couldn’t afford her. An illegitimate child is no less worthy of living then a child whose parents are married.
As one of the wealthiest nations the world has ever seen I think that the least we can do is try to make sure our children don’t starve in the streets. Especially when the only reason the child is starving is because the mother had the gall to not get married when she became pregnant.
Someone with a better knowlege of the system will hopefully be along to correct me, but IIRC, AFDC is the new name for what used to be WIC, so those are not two separate things. Since AFDC also pays for the mother’s food, I’m not sure you get food stamps while you’re on AFDC. (If you do, it’s just for the other children.) Just some nitpicks.
Not at all, if you don’t count Medicare and Medicaid. Those things make it balloon out quite a bit, though.
Once again, I don’t care for the word either. If someone could come up with a better term, I would be happy to use it.
No. AFDC was the cash benefit for welfare parents. It is now called TANS (Temporary Aid to Needy Familys. WIC is Woman, Infants and Children. It provides milk, cheese and other food to expectant mothers and new mothers. Food stamps are an additional program.
A person can get all three at once. A person receiving Food Stamps can also get free school breakfast and free school lunch for their children, despite the fact the family is already getting free food through the food stamp program.
Hmmm. Seems to me that we have some proven ideas already in place, so why pursue “merit-basing” welfare.
Several states (Wisconsin springs to mind) are noteworthy for having implemented successful reform. Elements of workfare (with appropriate exceptions for attending school, very young children, etc.), training oriented toward transitioning to the private sector, and reasonable time limits to be on welfare (again, with “deferments” for things like going to school), etc.
Also, note that this reform IS NOT simply a euphemism for cutting funding. It actually cost Wisconsin more (at least in the short run http://www.ncpa.org/pi/welfare/wel43a.html). Personally, I don’t mind spending the money to feed/clothe/educate folks, especially when it’s targeted at making them self-sufficient. I do (MHO here) mind spending it when it has no advancement component. I think that’s unfair to both the recipient AND the taxpayer who is supporting them.
Yes, it’s by no means perfect. I looked around for the most negative cast I could find (from a reputable source) and found this study which indicated that while the earnings of those who exited workfare went up, the loss of non-monetary benefit largely canceled that out. http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/sr/sr77.pdf
But my opinion on that is simple: Welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle. Transitioning someone from public support to self-supporting is a valid and worthwhile goal, even if they end up at the same “true” income level they had on public support…
I count as illegitimate. My mom was on welfare for a while when she was trying to get an education so that she could get a steady job that pays more than waitressing.
I don’t see what service would be served by my mother not having that chance. I don’t see what service would be served by us not being able to afford to feed and clothe ourselves. The education my mother got allowed her to become a productive member of society, exposed me as a young child to the world of education and allowed her to provide me with the oppertunities that add up to me soon graduating from a good college with excellent grades and facing a bright future.
My mom is an excellent and thoughtful parent. She was young when I was born, but I was not a surprise. My “illegitimacy” has no bearing on anything whatsoever. The few years she did spend married to my chronically unemployed alcoholic father were hellish. Nobodies life would be better if they had happened to be married when I was conceived. It really doesn’t have anything to do with anything.
If your gonna propose ideas like this, you have to realize that you are talking about the real lives of real people.
To begin with, what’s with the hostility, Hermann? Chill.
What’s unconstitutional is discriminating based upon illegitimacy. Pursuant to long-standing Supreme Court precedent, illegatimate children are a protected class and laws discriminating against them are subject to “strict scrutiny” - for any such law to be constitutional, it must be “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”
And before you argue, no discriminatory law passes that test.
::sigh:: Different nomenclature. In the field, “welfare” is not an all-encompassing term; it refers only to direct payments. The all-encompassing term used to be “entitlement programs.” I don’t know if that has changed since welfare reform.
OTOH, http://www.dhhs.gov/budget/04budget/fy2004bib.pdf
Welfare (direct payment) spending by the feds was $32 billion, or 1.6% of the 2002 federal budget.
Pre-reform, the costs of AFDC was split 60-40 between the feds and the states. These days, they use a “block grant” system, so I don’t know the level of state contribution.
http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/02/0040fs2.pdf
Food programs, including Food Stamps, school lunches, and WIC, constituted $41.2 billion, or 2.0%, of the 2003 federal budget (couldn’t find 2002’s figures, presumably they were lower). The feds pay 100% of these programs, so there is no drain on state budgets.
So, 10.9% of the federal budget is on entitlement programs of one kind or another. Medicaid makes up 66.5% of that spending.
[QUOTE]
quote:
What is a major drain is Medicaid
Make up your mind. Is Medicaid and other welfare programs a major drain, or
quote:
And, quite frankly, welfare and Food Stamps are not a major drain on state or federal budgets these days.
[QUOTE]
My mind is made up. I was analyzing the components of the spending, not pretending its was an amorphous mass to try to obscure the issues involved.
And here is my conclusion - Medicaid is a major drain. The other programs are not.
I’m not talking about total income. Most folks paying at the highest tax bracket claim deductions as well.
A childless person making $50,000 a year has to pay more taxes than a parent of dependent children making the same amount. The government makes an allowance for them, just like a welfare check is an allowance to someone on welfare.
This is welfare. It’s a different type that food stamps, but it’s still a “hand out”, make no mistake.
[sarcasm]As a single person paying a heap of taxes, I’m fed up with all those parents living high-off-the-hog around me. They have children only so that working stiffs like myself have to shell out more money. If we had limits on how many dependents can be claimed, I bet you’d see a big drop in family size. I think if we’re going to hold poor people to high standards, we should do the same for everyone the government helps out. Let’s be consistent here. [/sarcasm]