Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Will (not) work for food

   Nearly no other topic in politics is more taboo than that of welfare reform. But as the country continues to go trillions of dollars in debt, nearly no other topic is as crucial. First, let me start by saying that I am definitely for helping someone in need. But I draw the line at people who abuse the system. Evidence of abuse is rampant at this point in our nation's history. Since the economic downturn the number of people in need of government assistance has risen, but the number of abusers has also. By placing restrictions on the assistance given to those in need, we could drastically reduce the number of people abusing the system and help reign in government spending.
   Let's start with unemployment. What is terribly wrong with the idea of having people prove they are looking for a job. Currently, if someone is laid off from a place of business that has paid into unemployment, they can receive something like 99 weeks of unemployment checks. And all they have to do is sign up. Nothing more. As long as they do not work they get paid. So what motivation do they have to look for a job. Why not create a system whereby people receiving unemployment must prove that they are looking for a Job. For instance, create a system where people must mark on an application if they are receiving unemployment and the employer must submit the application. Additionally, require the person to fill out a minimum of four applications a month in order to continue receiving assistance.
   Or how about, food stamps. With food stamps there are very little restrictions on what can be bought. What I mean by this is a person on food stamps can go buy a cart full of T-Bone steaks at $12 a pop while those who are actually trying (working and budgeting) must eat beans and rice. I am not against food stamps, but they should limit the amount of junk food and things like that people can buy. It's no wonder that low income families disproportionately represent obese or severely overweight Americans. Don't believe me, go grocery shopping on the first of the month and look at some of the baskets loaded down with Little Debbie's, ribs, and cokes. It is ridiculous.
   People argue that it is their right and they deserve these government handouts, but if you are using tax dollars to purchase everything, the government should have a say in how it is spent. I should have a say in how my tax dollars are spent. Ironically, it pays not to do anything. You can get medical coverage, your house paid for, your food paid for, and possibly a little spending money for 99 weeks. Something has to be done, and it starts with the politicians growing a pair and tackling the controversial issues.


  1. Um, it's "their" not "there". Law student...pshh. So should I put your name in for the running of U.S. Senator or should we just go straight to the top and take on the Presidential race?

  2. Mine is govols61.blogspot.com

  3. I don't see what you're talking about Jo Jo. But yes, Obama can just hand over the keys right now.

  4. I too have found myself in the grocery store or Wal-Mart on the first of the month on a few occasions. My usual, giving, compassionate self quickly turns bitter... It's not about the fact that my dollar is helping people in need, but like you mentioned, the cases and cases of cokes, boxes of snack cakes, donuts, chips, junk, junk, junk! This cleary doens't help the health of the individual or their children. This is one chip off the block of issues that down spirals from there. Without regulations, the system will continue to be abused. The government is not painting a picture of work = reward, but rather that no work = hand outs. Josh, I'm on your side, so you've got my vote either way! :)