Government's Welfare Programs


For a long time now, since the accomplished formation of a stable
government, the U.S government has had programs and passed laws that either
dealt with issues of or influence family. Many of these “family” programs and
laws currently in place today are frequently and commonly debated. One of the
most debated and most labored over “family” programs or law is Welfare. The
argument is whether or not to, and how welfare should be cut or minimized.

The debate is simple enough, but the argument on welfare's benefits and
drawbacks is not. On the pro side of the argument, on which I stand, welfare
aids poor families as well as the economy and may help to reduce crime.
Welfare's benefits far out weigh its drawbacks. Welfare generally helps poor
families survive in today's economy by providing a means for them to obtain food
while they search for a job. These families receive foodstamps, to purchase food,
and a small amount of dollars to aid with either rent or utilities. Because of
this income from welfare, crime is reduced. This is because there is now more
income so the poor no longer have the need to go out and commit crimes to
attain that income. Welfare also aids in improving the economy because the
children of these families can afford to go to school and have a chance to make
someone of themselves. Instead of enrolling in welfare themselves, in the future
these people will make contributions to the economy and will be tax paying
citizens.

On the contrary, welfare is currently a great government expense that
tax payers pay for. Federal tax rates throughout the country are extremely high
and welfare, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are main contributors. The
purpose of welfare is to aid a person with monetary need in getting by until
they can find a job to support themselves, but this seldom occurs. Some argue
that there are plenty of poor families that get along without welfare and its
benefits. These people argue that the heads of these families have multiple jobs
and work extremely hard to get by, while others just sit and collect a welfare
check from the government. I feel that this is unfair to the hard workers, and
unfair to us tax payers. Others say that these people are in their present
situation because of their own ill choices in life and that the government owes
them nothing. It is also true that there exist a great number of people that
abuse the welfare program. These individuals may enroll in welfare without the
intention of ever getting a job. Others trade foodstamps for cash or drugs.
These ideas, or facts, can be used as a valid argument for the dismantling, or
at least minimizing, of the welfare program.

Currently steps are being taken by the government to reduce the number
of welfare recipients as well as to minimize spending on the program itself. The
president recently introduced his “Workfare” plan. This plan, by forcing
individuals to both work and search for work and by ultimately truncating their
welfare benefits, should reduce both the number of people on welfare and the
number of future enrollments.

The pro's and con's of welfare are clear. I am somewhat partial to the
idea of down sizing, but am not a hard-line thinker and believe that the program
should be left in place. The drain from welfare on tax payer money, although
great , is decreasing as more and more people get off welfare and begin work.