The issues surrounding welfare have created several positions surrounding it. Recently ideas about drug testing and jobs have been in the forefront of social conciseness (Morrison). Some argue that we need more lax guidelines to qualify for welfare. Much of America remains below the poverty level and are in need of assistance. Those in favor of more lax rules fear that by making it harder to receive welfare that many will be discriminated against and proper aid will not be allowed to those who depend on welfare for financial survival (Gilens 89). Many recipients of welfare are minorities, mothers, and of course those of lower economic status (Gilens 89). Worries that these groups will be discriminated against if harsher laws exist is a valid point (Gilens 89). This group argues that the recent suggestion of drug testing to receive welfare goes against our constitutional rights. To say that low income people are more likely to use drugs is a stereotype and thus violates personal rights (Morrison). This position also worries that by requiring welfare recipients to work, children may suffer as a result. They argue that most on welfare would prefer to work but not all circumstances allow for work. It would be difficult to judge who qualifies and by degrading and demoralizing to many individuals. The main fear is that children of these recipients may be penalized if their caregivers are unable to meet these requirements (Morrison).
There are also many that support the idea of mandatory drug testing and compliance with providing proof of work hours. This view works to disprove those that claim stricter rules would be a hindrance. Social workers would be employed to insure that all recipients meet the requirements and would have the power to reduce benefits. They fear than many are using the welfare system not for family support but for drugs and alcohol. They believe that in these cases the children are not receiving the benefits of welfare anyway, so why support drug habits? Those who believe in this position think that by closely monitoring recipients, the system can crack down on those who abuse the system. Statistics show that currently only about 28% of would receive temporary assistance for needy families have paid. Only 14% participate in work related activities and 5% do work experience or community service(Cohen 4). The fear is that by receiving welfare, the recipients will not be motivated in presuming work or education. To allow for those who do not work to continue to receive welfare, only causes the problem to grow and drains the system of funds.
These more extreme points raise questions but are in reality invalid. The lax rules position does very little to keep people from taking advantage of welfare, does not offer encouragement to work, and does not have a good system of proper monitoring. The system simply can’t survive, if no guidelines are placed on who receives aid. On the other end of the spectrum, over monitoring and extremely strict guidelines, also drains funds by pouring funds into monitoring instead of helping those with low income. Cutting funds drastically can cause those who need assistance not to receive it.
Both sides have valid points, but fortunately there is also room for middle ground in welfare reform. Instead of testing for everyone, only those with a history or signs of addiction would be required to be tested. This helps lower the overall cost of the monitoring process. The middle ground position also supports requiring recipients to work however within reasonable guidelines. Allowing for educational pursuits should be counted as work activity, and allows at least one year for work experience. Many feel that all of a student’s college activity should count("USA Today" ). This is an important step to assure students can receive their education without fear of having their welfare cut. Activities such as job training or job searching also should be valid work time. After all it does indicate that the welfare recipient is actively searching for work. More leeway is allowed for those with disabilities and single parents who cannot meet the minimum requirement("USA Today" ).
Those in support of middle ground suggest that instead of cutting funding, more emphasis should be placed on providing resources for welfare families. Most states currently have a cap on how long people can be on welfare, usually five years. The middle ground argument supports caps, but asks that they reasonable based on individual circumstances(Ellis).
Discussion has been made about cutting benefits for adults but keeping benefits for children. By allotting funds for training programs and making investments in child care, is needed if mothers are required to work. It is obvious that their children will need child care. Middle ground arguments also suggest trying to cut back on out of wedlock births. Teenage mothers should not receive cash grants, but instead receive health care, housing, food, and shelter for the child (Bunting).
Works Cited:
Bunting, G. "Welfare Reform Debaters Scout Out Middle Ground : Congress: House majority leader shows willingness to compromise on benefits to teen-age mothers. Flexibility on budget also emerges.." Los Angeles Times 25 09 1995, n. pag. Web. 20 Mar. 2012.
Cohen, M. "Mandatory Work-Related Activities for Welfare Recipients:The Next Step in Welfare Reform." Welfare Reform Academy. (2001): 4..
Ellis, V. "California: Middle Ground of Welfare Reform." Los Angeles Times. N.p., 1997. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
Gilens, M. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. University of Chicago Press, 1999. 89.
Morrison, W. "No Savings with Welfare Drug Testing." MyAddiction.com. N.p., 14 09 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2012.
"New welfare rule eased for college students." USA Today. 28 01 2008: n. page. Print.
