Single Welfare Mothers
Will soon be single, working mothers in the U.K. Jonathan Oliver writes in the Times of London of a development over there that may make it a wee bit less attractive for lazy, single female mooches to pump out children by the half-dozen:
ALMOST all benefit claimants will be forced either to look for a job or prepare for work if they want to continue to receive state handouts, under a shake-up of the welfare state.Single mothers of children as young as one and people registered unfit for work will be compelled to go on training courses and work experience or risk cuts to their benefits.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, said: "Virtually everyone will be doing something in return for their benefits."
The welfare reform white paper, to be published this week, is set to provoke anger from rebel Labour MPs and campaign groups who believe such measures are unfair in a period of rising unemployment.
The conviction of Karen Matthews for kidnapping her daughter Shannon has shown the perverse consequences of the welfare system. Matthews, who had seven children, had never worked and was existing on £400 a week in benefits.
The government will also announce plans to:
- Reform housing benefit to ensure the jobless can no longer live in large houses courtesy of the taxpayer.
- Allow companies to bid for contracts to place the long-term unemployed in work.
- Introduce a medical testing regime for people on incapacity benefit.
- Impose US-style "work-fare" schemes forcing those who refuse to take jobs to work in return for benefits.
Good as far as it goes, but I doubt it does much to lift single parent households out of poverty. And a child already deprived of a father's loving attention (almost always the scenario in a SPH) is probably not much enriched by having Mom away for several more hours a day.
Even if worthwhile, these measures don't address the core matter: Society (not just government, but civilization's entire machine) should insist that people who make babies marry well.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 7, 2008 12:21 AM
Lift 'em out of poverty or not, at least it might help ease the malaise of the taxpayer, sick of going to work 60 hours a week whilst financing generational welfare recipients.
"Reform housing benefit to ensure the jobless can no longer live in large houses courtesy of the taxpayer." I'd love to see this one implemented here. When they started toppling Cabrini Green in Chicago, the residents of this notorious low-income project have been spread out into the very pricey Chicago suburbs and beyond into my city. The thinking was if we working stiffs showed 'em how it was done, they'd be motivated to act like us. LOL. This failed miserably, and my city has reported higher crime rates than Chicago now.
juliana at December 7, 2008 4:28 AM
Well, finally a little commons sense! Yes, they should have to do something for that money besides just sit around and pop out more babies. The rest of us do! Might make the next generation think twice before starting more of the same.
momof3 at December 7, 2008 6:40 AM
This will get shot down the instant the muslims start rioting.
What, you thought it was aimed at someone else?
brian at December 7, 2008 7:13 AM
I think welfare payments should be contingent on women having Norplant or similar long-term birth control in place. I don't think that would ever be adopted, though. Some idiot would challenge it on constitutional grounds. They would probably say it violates equal protection because it puts an undue burden on women.
Brandyjane at December 7, 2008 8:01 AM
"This failed miserably, and my city has reported higher crime rates than Chicago now"
Your experience is universal, Juliana. I think you'll find this article fascinating:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime
It's the story of Richard Janikowski, a criminologist at the University of Memphis. About 25 years ago, the federal government started the Section 8 Federal Housing Voucher program, under which the worst inner-city public housing projects (like Cabrini Green) would be demolished and their residents moved out into federally-subsidized housing in the suburbs.
Janikowski kept hearing from Memphis cops that crime patterns in the city were changing. Crime rates had been dropping in the most notorious parts of the inner city, but soaring in many formerly peaceful suburbs. One day, he overlaid a map of robberies, rapes, & murders in Greater Memphis onto a map of Section 8 rentals. Lo and behold, a perfect match. The same pattern showed up in cities across the country. When welfare receipients were moved out of the projects into shiny clean new housing in nice neighborhoods at taxpayer's expense, they did not turn over a new leaf. They indulged in exactly the criminal behaviour that made the projects into hellholes in the first place.
The problem is not just welfare itself. It's that so many of the people receiving it are scumbags, plain & simple.
Martin at December 7, 2008 10:50 AM
Martin- You're right- and the funny thing is the Chicago politicians are loudly crowing and patting themselves on the back for the drop in crime around Cabrini Green; but note their failure for positing an incomplete statement of analysis. They refuse to acknowledge that they've pushed the problem on other cities, as the other cities are screaming bloody murder. And well, who has moved in to this "reurbanized" area around Cabrini Green? A bunch of peaceful yuppies into their new condos and office spaces!
juliana at December 7, 2008 11:27 AM
Juliana- I see your point, but isn't Loop-adjacent real estate kinda supposed to be gentrifying? A couple years ago I was downtown for New Years, and absolutely amazed and the number of new, fancypants condo skyscrapers.
Seeing this picture this morning called it all to mind: Even for a premiere American urban center, it seemed like an awful lot of elegant housing. Presumably, you could get a fabulous lakeview place for a song if you were buying this month.
It's not that anyone's happy to see all those troubled people scattered into formerly safe neighborhood elsewhere in the city, but clustering them in CG didn't work out so well, either. Any real estate boom like the one we've just exited ought to make better use of downtown acreage, right?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 7, 2008 9:57 PM
PS- During that visit, I drove by Cabrini just to see the carcass, and was appalled at the first sight of one of the new police camera/alarm boxes. Instantly, Farhenheit 451 came to mind... But the Chicago cameras are uglier, and more intimidating, than anything a Hollywood designer could ever come up with.
For all I know they've been a tremendous success, and have protected the comfort and nourished the safety of the Windy City beyond anyone's wildest hopes. But fuck, are they ugly. Yooo-gleee!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at December 7, 2008 10:05 PM
To be honest Crid, I'm not that well versed how cities are supposed to be rehabbed; I had a second major in Sociology which touched on this topic from the people standpoint but had squat on city planning. These days I'm more a small-town girl and what I hear on the crime front is from the cops in our little city of only 200,000 compared to Chi-Town. I have no problem with making downtown more livable, but I do have a problem with my little downtown here going all wonky.
On an aside, did you read the article Martin linked? I found it quite interesting...
juliana at December 8, 2008 6:12 PM
Oh, and upon rereading my comment that you're replying to, my point was that these yuppies commit different kinds of crimes than the previous residents, so the pols are comparing apples to oranges.
juliana at December 8, 2008 6:14 PM
Leave a comment