Responsible Welfare

I tend to be libertarian in my views: in most things, the government should not involve itself in our lives. Other people's rights to do things end at my front door, as do my rights to do things (end at other's front door).

But, I am not 100% libertarian, and I'd like to think I'm realistic. In terms of those who are "down on their luck", I believe it is right and just that we, as a society, provide some assistance to help them get back on their feet. This was the premise of the various assistance programs that grew out of FDR's "New Deal".

But now, circa 2008, we have third and even fourth generations of people who have lived on nothing but government support. There continue to be people who have children they can't support merely to garner more support from the government (e.g. Taxpayers). The various attempts to "reform welfare" over the past 30 years have all helped, but have not "solved" the problem of welfare dependency, and those who use welfare for a livelihood, not the "help back on their feet" it was intended to be.

This is where the libertarian view of no-government-intrusion comes to a screaching stop.

I believe that if we taxpayers, through our government(s), provide assistance to someone, we have an obligation to ensure those funds are well spent. To this end, I believe those on assistance should be held to a reasonble standard of conduct and living.

Some have proposed drug testing for those on welfare. To me, this is a no-brainer and should have been instituted long ago. Funding to run the program would come from savings of those kicked off the dole because they turned up hot on the test.

I propose the following additional measures for those on any form of assistance:

1. Living conditions must meet a mimum standard, but not exceed a maximum in terms of square footage per person or luxuries.

2. Amenities should be restricted to a bare minimum. Small, maybe 19" TV (just one) and one "boom box" type stereo. They shouldn't have big-screen TVs, cable or satellite, or large stereo systems. If they can afford those things, they don't need assistance. Furnishings should be basic and limited.... if they have time to lounge around on a plush couch or such, they have time to go out and find work.

3. Automobile should be basic, reliable, but nothing special. Those drug dealers who are on welfare and drive Mercedes, need to either unload the car or get off welfare. I'd say something on the order of a 1995 Ford Taurus is about the nicest they should have. If they can afford a better car, they shouldn't be on welfare.

4. No cigarettes, no booze, no beer, no soda, no junk food, no take-out food. Food stamps and welfare should go for wholesome, healthy food. It should also go for soap, toothpaste, over-the-counter medicine, vitamins and laundry detergent, but not cosmetics. Smoking, drinking alcohol and soda, and eating junk food is demonstratably bad for a person, and we shouldn't be causing harm to our fellow citizens through our assistance. Moreover, these things don't lead to them getting back on their feet, so they shouldn't be buying it while on assistance.

5. Activities, clothing, recreation, etc... all is cut to the bare minimum essential.

Bottom line, public assistance should be just that: ASSISTANCE. If you can do these other things, you don't need it. If you are on a form of assistance and want to be able to do these other things... get off assistance. It doesn't matter to me if they earn 99% of their income through legitmate work, and get 1% assistance... as long as they are receiving even a penny of taxpayer dollars through the government as assistance, they should be restricted in how they live, what they own, and the things they do.

Such a regime would also help people to learn to better manage their lives. Some on assistance are there because of bad decisions they have made. A regimented life while on assistance may help them to learn to make better decisions in the future, something that would help them for the rest of their lives!

Many will call this proposal draconian, and an intrusion into people's civil liberties. Maybe so, but when people accept government (taxpayer) assistance, that acceptance should constitute agreement to live a certain way and be monitored for compliance. If they don't like that condition, they always have the option to not accept the assistance. Just like when we join the military, we voluntarily accept a restriction on our civil liberties for the duration of our service. Why should those not serving, but enjoying taxpayer largess, be any different?

Perhaps in this way, we would finaly break the cycle of dependence on government assistance, and truly reform welfare, while maintaining the ability to truly assist those who just need a little help to get back on their feet.

CP