Perhaps a solution to the eternal welfare problems is to make the payments more like student loans and less like grants. The interest rates could be kept very low, but they would have to be paid back and could never be dismissed through bankruptcy. Each and every monthly payment would be released only when the recipient acknowledges that the money is a loan and not a grant, the total balance of their loan, the interest accrued so far on the past balance, and that they understand they must pay back the full balance plus interest.
Doing this would have several positive effects. Lifetime welfare recipients would be a rare occurrence, kids in welfare families would learn there is not a free train to ride on, and all welfare recipients would be generally more motivated to do something to earn their own income. The government costs of administering the welfare loans program would be 95% less than the current costs of just giving out the money with no repayments expected. Everyone’s taxes could be significantly decreased without paying as much to support welfare. According to the conservative economic theory that decreased taxes stimulates economic activity, our economy would also be stronger.
In this manner, we could transform welfare into a true hand-up, rather than a hand-out. It would become more of an investment vehicle, like the student-loan program.
Popularity: 6%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
I like Tar n Feather Em’s thoughts. They make a lot of sense to me, especially what children in a household see and experience as their parents receive assistance. I ran it by a couple of colleagues today and htey, too, agree that this was a great idea.
Is it Tar n Feather Em’s original idea, or borrowed from someone else? Either way, I don’t care. I just wonder how it get implimented?
As far as Idaho Fallz on Google, why not search for Idaho Fallz on Google? I’m no computer genius, like a few of you are, but my simplistic understanding about Google, was that amount of hits, plus ranking and other factors, allow certain websites to appear earlier in a Google search. So if one were to search for Idaho Falls enough times, with the help from some friends, wouldn’t that improve the probability of Google actually locating this website?
This idea would serve to increase personal responsibility, reduce our welfare payments, and decrease our taxes since the welfare fund would have a new revenue source.
Can it be legal, though? In some cases the money could not be paid back, like for quadropalegics who have limited earning capabilities.
I would guess at least 80% of today’s recipients could repay the money back, though.
Perhaps a separation of programs, then. We could have “disability welfare” and “welfare loans” – disability would work like the current system, with oversight from doctors and social workers to ensure abuses of the system are at a minimum.
Welfare loans could be used to keep families afloat, and coupled with employment services, could enable people to better their lives, then repay the loans.
I like this idea.
There you go, excellent distinction!
Any lawyers or legislators know about the legality of this?
Years ago President Clinton signed welfare reform that was submitted by a republican congress that solved the problem of welfare abuse. There is no longer a problem. The law put in a cap on how much welfare a person can recieve. There is no longer a problem. To require someone to payback the helping hand society has given them would be unjust to say the least. Now then, maybe we should discuss forign aid. If you want to suggest we require forign countries to pay back the money we give them. I might go for that. But dont even consider requiring our own citizens to be saddled with another debt until you consider forign aid first.
By foreign aid, do you mean like AIDS relief to Africa, etc.? I have to admit that I thought your reply was going in an entirely different direction.
Look, the US is very, very low on the list when it comes to how much, proportionally, we give to the world from our national budget. If anything, we should be doing more.
Requiring a nation with 85% absolute poverty and 2 million deaths from AIDS and other treatable diseases is not only immorral, it’s not realistic.
However, in America, the welfare system should exist to get families back on their feet, then when they are back on their feet, they can afford to pay it back. In cases of foreign aid, this simply isn’t plausible.
Jeremy, I’ve also seen those statistics that USA gives less proportionally than the rest of the world.
Ben, you have a good point there I hadn’t considered before. I don’t agree with your assertion ‘there is no longer a problem’ when we witness everyday what Jeremy wrote about originally, but I see your other points.
Your point about “But dont even consider requiring our own citizens to be saddled with another debt until you consider forign aid first.” made me think of a tangent, so here goes.
Can America’s burgeoning credit card debt be analogous to welfare?
Think of it: credit cards are also used by people who don’t have the money, but instead of the government giving the money it’s banks. Sure welfare is (supposed) to be for basic necessities and credit debt is usually for toys (though often actually is for necessities), but isnt’ the concept the same?
And didn’t our congress just tighten the bankrupcty laws a year or so ago to force more credit debts to be paid back instead of forgiven outright?
So if welfare can be analagous to credit debt, the idea of requiring welfare to be paid back (hey even without interest) is in line with our national debt policies of personal responsibility (not unjust).
Anyone follow me out on that plank there?
It sounds like you’re talking about government-sponsored class warfare, Joe. And I agree with you. I, however, see something much more dubious in the works here – subjugation through our monetary system.
One need look no further than who controls our money to see what is happening in American. The constitution declares that the government, a neutral party, shall print and control money – but who does? Our government has entrusted money to the people who stand to profit from its misuse – private banking institutions in the form of the Fed.
It’s depressing.
I’m happy to see this article again today. When I saw it a year ago, it seemed to make a lot of sense to me. This seems so reasonable and I’d like to add an additional program that I’d like to see mirror what was proprosed here (I’m working on the article). So this is especially appreciated today as I am working on an idea, modeled after what Tar n Feather Em wrote here.
In many ways, TnFE’s article, plus all the computer tips and links, were two of the key reasons I continued visiting IFz.Com as a guest. I became convinced others wanted better things for our community and neighbors, as much as I did (and do).
Still, it took about 2.5 more months for Joe to convince me to register after this article. I had to see for my self that no one I’d watch post many times had ever been identified.
Thanks to Tar n Feather Em for this very interesting idea and thanks to Joe for running the articles from 1 year ago that perhaps brought out the best in many of us. I hope we can continue exchanging ideas productively, as many of us have lately. I have so much to learn from the wisdom and experience many others who have written here freely share.
I really appreciate it when we don’t have to have political debates in every thread. I enjoy exchanging ideas with those of you whom I honestly believe are trying to make our area better, while addressing the needs of residents and others invested in the success of Idaho Falls. No one person has all the answers. But, together we may find or propose better solutions to some current issues.
Thanks to all who have given me pointers, ideas and new resources via Idaho Fallz.Com.
wow!… did I just read a few comments criticizing the United States for NOT giving more in foreign aid???
are we supposed to be the care-takers for the world???
explain how it is possible to condemn those living in the United States needing aid… and not condemn those living in another country needing aid… and the United States is to come to the rescue to those other countries and not to those here???
if we give foreign aid to other countries, shouldn’t they be in the same repayment program suggested for those in this country???
where is the consistency…?
and is it fair to give away all that our fathers have worked for just to look good in the eyes of other countries???
What is the status of our foreign aid vs. foreign debt ratio?
We get angry about sending so much money abroad, yet we are trillions in debt, mostly owing notes to the Chinese.
Do we owe more or send more out?
Wouldn’t it be best to both pay our foreign debts and to cut back foreign grants?
Then I would say yes, let’s make welfare payments more like a loan program than a grant program.
I know that the US, proportionately, gives far less in foreign aid than most other nations. I personally don’t mind the level that our foreign aid assistance is at right now – what’s .4 (or something like that) percent of our tax dollars if it means preventing another Darfur, helping the AIDS crisis (which is a world problem), or restoring a country’s infrastructure after a national disaster?
However, the system should be transparent and subject to judicial review.
It is my understanding with the latest bunch of welfare reform that there is a time limit during which one can receive “cash assistance.” It isn’t stated in the original post but are you refering to just the cash assistance or to other programs as well such as Medicaid, Food Stamps and ICCP?
I know that there are people who take advantage of the welfare system and know a few personally. However, there are a lot of honest people on the system as well just trying to get their lives together when everything falls apart.
Let me also state that I have been on various government run programs including food stamps, medicaid and ICCP. I have received one cash assistance payment and that was about 6 years ago and in a different state.
The biggest problem that I have found with the Idaho welfare system is the amount of money that is offered for some programs such as food stamps, cash assistance and ICCP. The amount that I was given was just enough to allow me to scrape by each month. However, when I was in another state for about two months I was able to receive enough money that it wasn’t just a hand out but an actual hand up. The amounts offered didn’t just allow you to scrape by but actually get back on your feet. In Idaho the average amounts given just keep you right on the poverty level. I think if the government would actually give enough for people that truly needed it to get on their own to feet then they would be able to get off the welfare system. I don’t know very many people that truly want to be on the system. They want to be self sufficient but they don’t have to tools to get ahead and are only given enough to survive.
A person making 10.00 an hour with 2 children (both in daycare), $550.00 in rent plus other bills is no longer eligible for ICCP. Daycare can easily run $400 a month for two children and once you hit that threashold where it looks like there might be light at the end of the tunnel that is reachable they dump you off. People are left to either scrape by or take a job that pays less because otherwise you can’t afford daycare and the costs of diapers. It is a catch 22 situation.
I think more then making loan payments back to the government that the government would be better off giving these people the tools and assistance to actually better themselves and enable them to provide for their families. When that is done it will decrease the actual need for welfare in the future from these individuals instead of landing them right back where they started.
Joe, In reading the various posts of this thread again, I read your question, and Jeremy’s, about people with disabilities.
I think it is important to know that people with disabilities have acceess to a “different pool” of Medicaid (not means tested, like most Medicaid we see in daily life). Rather, the limitations of these people, their medical needs and care for life are all factors that enter into what they are eligible for.
Along with Disability Medicaid, these patients also qualify for a monthly cash supplment. I don’t want to write too much about that know, as that is what I want to write in my article.
However, I will give you a situation to ponder. Patient x has an illness that if poorly controlled can result in all sorts of hospitalizations, E.R. visits, daily meds etc. The person may not comprehend what s/he is doing at school or work, given how sick they are. Or, they may not work.
So along comes Dr. Wonderful who understands more about this patient’s disease than his/her previous specialists have and makes the child totally functional. The patient responds so well to the change in medication, the patient NO LONGER qualifies for the cash supplemental income.
Given certain patterns you’ve observed, as a member of the team providing care for this minor patient, you worry that a parent my sabotage treatment. You know this set of parents don’t work and rely strictly on the disability of various family members for their family income.
So in many ways they have a vested interest to having child “A” continue receiving his/her disability check monthly.
Just to be clear, this disability check, since it is accessed from a different set of state and sometimes federal funds, and it doesn’t prevent or limit the other assistance programs the family may receive in adition to the disability benefits.
You, as a team member, know the child is coming up for his/her 2 year review again. You know this child know is making As in school and everyone is not only dumbfounded, but trying to obain similar care for other children.
However, you also know these parens count on this child’s disablity check. You fear there is a high probability that the child will fall bacward, because your best guess is the parents will remove a medication, or lower it etc., until the child isn’t doing as well- especially at the time of the review.
If you were a member of this health-care team and had the ability to make a decision, what would you do? Is it better to ensure the family has this income, or better to ensure the academic, social and other gains this chid has now acquired don’t regress?
When I wrote my comments here, I was responding to the original article Tar N Feather Em had written about aid for U.S. residents. What I have written here is a real situation. It is very similar to what TNFE wrote, but also different.
I look forwad to your thoughts or beliefs of what you would do in assisting this family and this child who has finally been accepted by his/her peers, as wel as being in sports and other activities.
Interesting question.
From my point of view, it is more important to ensure that proper health care is applied and that the child is given a chance to excel, than it is to ensure that the family is guaranteed a continued payout that they no longer really need.
If a family is willing to sabotage their child’s medical care in exchange for continued payout from the system, they abandon their right for compassion, in my opinion.
I completely agree with Jeremy on that, and I would even take it further. If the parents are willing to sabotage the child’s health simply to receive money, then children’s services needs to look at removing the child and placing them with someone who would have the child’s best interest at heart, and not their pocketbook.
Thanks for your comments. I happen to agree with both Jeremy and Ronin.