Seize welfare babies and put them up for adoption. By law.

It's actually worse than your headline implies, Amy. Welfare isn't just paying more than employment. Since your source uses the examples of a teacher, a secretary and a computer programmer, it's paying more than skilled employment.

They're not just doing better than a minimum wage Wal-Mart greeter. They're doing better than someone who had to go to school, or at least acquire certain skills.

How do we stop incentivizing the behavior without punishing kids for the circumstances of their birth?

Short answer: You can't.

Either the parents are made accountable for their choice, or they're not.

Seize welfare babies and put them up for adoption. By law.

I would love to agree with this but then all that does is put more kids in the system and more burden on the state. That's not really solving the problem either.

I say, whittle welfare down to it's most basic, form, lower the incentive to be on it, and make things much more transparent and accountable. Make being on welfare a harship, not a lifestyle.
It's hard at first; there will be growing pains. Likely, a few children will "suffer". But, I am of the opinion that all it takes is a few hard lessons before the message goes from "If I have a baby I'll get get money" to "Shit. I'm screwed if I have a baby."

Unfortunately, the fact that we've even made this our problem is the problem. I am not a heartless bitch. My heart bleeds for children who are born to irresponsible parents... but, the idea that we should not be expected to be accountable for another persons poor choices is ludicrious to me.

And, really, how many children are DYING because of poverty in America? And, on that note, how many of those "poor" kids have tv's and new Nikes every year? I bet if we actually looked at the numbers of kids who are truly "suffering" due to poverty vs. the number of kids who are just "hungry" because mom and dad spent all thier money on other stuff, you'd be amazed at the lack of actual suffering.

The reason for the giant gap between states on this are medical costs, and housing costs. Specifically, subsidized housing is cheap to provide where housing is cheap (MS, TX, etc) and expensive to provide where housing is expensive (MA, HI, DC). Also, medical care is generally more expensive in the higher cost of living states, so the same medicaid coverage costs more to provide. These programs don't provide cash income, they provide specific goods or services. And the programs cost more in areas where those goods or services are more costly to provision.

I say-go back to soup kitchens and communal shelters. Yes, we will keep you fed and out of the elements. But that is IT. No SNAP-you can't feed your household, hit the soup line. No more rent subsidies-you can't afford to house your family? Communal dorm-style no-frills housing for you-if it's good enough for soldiers and college students, it's good enough for the poor. Economy of scale-a few large dorms in each cities would cost much less than helping out thousands of households.

And of course the poor would howl about the indignity and their "rights"....which is why people receiving government money should lose their right to vote until they are off government subsidies.

TANF absolutely DOES provide cash, Peter. Actually, an EBT card good wherever credit cards can be used, for the most part.

I can confirm that as a teacher in MA I earned less than the above quote for welfare.

Oh, and my 1-year EdM program left me deeply in debt (which has since been paid). Less money + debt. Of course had I stuck in the system 20 years I'd be making way more money than welfare.

Momof4, the problem with communal shelters is there's a lot of theft, rape and other forms of assault going on.

But I could see a college dorm-type thing where you get your room and can lock the door, and go downstairs to eat. (As opposed to a barracks where everyone is in the same room). I'd keep family units separate from each other and from singles, though. And give people ways to lock up their valuables (including their bodies).

I think that's the way a lot of family homeless shelters work, actually.

The big question is, is it more of a PITA to build the shelters and relocate people to them, or to leave them where they are?

These programs don't provide cash income, they provide specific goods or services.

As momof4 points out, EBT cards are credit cards. But even if we're just handing them food, that's something the don't have to spend money on.

Oh, here's that story from Boston about a woman charged with operating under the influence (OUI) who had three EBT cards in her possession and "mocked a cop “for paying for food when she gets it for free” ".

If you wanted to end tax subsidies and the tax code as we know it, simply pass a law that says unless you pay $1 more in taxes than you receive in direct government benefits, you do not get to vote.

Welfare should be an investment, not a burden.

Here is how you solve the welfare issue.

1. A LIFETIME limit on access to it. Just as a hypothetical, 10 TOTAL years in your entire life.

2. Link welfare to job training. Every recipient is required to enroll in a state provided education plan, allowing them to attend an instate school for a practical (employable) degree (no womyn's studies or 17th century basket weaving, we're talking nursing, engineering, plumbing, etc). You can only collect if you attend those classes and maintain a GPA of 3.0 or better.

3. If you commit a crime under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you are dropped from the role until you complete a treatment program. (1 shot at this apple only) If you commit a crime while sane and sober, you are removed from the roles and never permitted access again. (Conviction mandated)

4. Welfare would be provided in this example for the duration of your skills training, and thereafter you would recieve a monthly decrease in funds which will result in total termination of services at the end of 1 year after training.

5. Companies which hire off the welfare program would recieve tax incentives for the first year of employment based on the number of employees they hire off the system.

6. Citizens on welfare who fail out of their chosen skill set, or fail to perform their course obligations, may retain active enrollment by performing public works, arriving at a designated site, then perform tasks such as caring for city property, picking up trash, removing graffiti, etc. Failure to appear (with the same absense restrictions) results in termination and ineligibility for welfare for one year before they may reapply.

7. Citizens who have children that require care while they attend job training will be given vouchers for the day care of their choice, however this again is conditional upon their work performance in training and the commission of a crime during this time will result in the automatic loss of custody and benefits.

8. If a citizen has used up all 10 years on the dole, and still wants assistance...fuck em.

Enough is enough.

(As opposed to a barracks where everyone is in the same room).

Nicole, barracks haven't been like that in decades. The newest ones have 2 bedrooms (with locking doors) and a communal kitchen and bath area, with an external locking door.

Another one that should be done is that if you get on welfare with one child and while pregnant, your benefits do not go beyond two children, even if you have more.

You do not get an increase for popping out more children.

The only way your limit can be increased is by being off welfare for over three years, in every state.

The problem with linking government benefits to job training is that so many members of the underclass are unemployable cretins who aren't fit to shovel shit. If you dispute this, take a look at the welfare mamas & baby daddies on display in this video and then tell me what jobs you would ever hire any of them for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DrzCVAJtDw

I have a solution.

Each and every U.S. citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, and providing they have no children, can sign up for welfare if they want, and they can have it for as long as they want, even their entire lives. They don't ever have to go to school, get a job, and don't have to do a damn thing in life except take up space and breathe air, and we won't let them starve. They can have ... whatever it is we're giving out now - enough to live on.

The stipulation is that they must never have any children.

This way, the problem steadily diminishes until it would practically disappear in a single generation. Instead of growing exponentially worse, as it stands now.

Well, china does forced abortions for second kids. And in USA, people do abortion as a lifestyle choice. So if anyone on welfare is pregnant, you just forcefully abort them so there are no kids born for people who are on welfare. Of course, if they go on welfare after they have 6 kids, its a different matter, but even then, it can be restricted by limiting welfare to the last drawn salary minus some percent(say 15%) and that will probably be enough to get people back to work.

No forced abortions.
No mandatory sterilizations.
No taking people's kids away.

Seriously, if the only way to save humanity is through some kind of creepy Orwelian shit like this, then it's not worth saving. Screw us.

Just nitpicking here; but, I wish that headline read "Employment should not pay less than Welfare."

And the only way to fix that is to get the government out of running businesses with bail-outs and over-regulations.

I dont know what the answer is, but I do know whatever disability/welfare the woman down the street is on for her alcoholism and eating disorders has pretty much meant the stop to he getting any better. She went from someone who could hold down a job, to someone who sits around the house all day playing on facebook.

I'm with the talk about being on the dole requiring living in specific housing. Make it something like the bleak/bland projects that are well known in places like Chicago. Anyone (of able body and mind) that voluntarily wants to be on the dole should have to live in an uncomfortable way. Require forms of "chores" to earn your stay. For instance, have a communal kitchen per floor or something for dinner, rotating who cooks/cleans/etc. Also have the people living there responsible for the maintenance. But have some days where you don't do any "chores" but are required to be out looking for a job (or in real training/schooling for a new one). Any kids would be required to be in school (age appropriate of course) and showing that they're actually attending and doing the work. Break rules, earn demerits or something ... hit some level, you're out. Sure, then the calls of "you don't care,"... for people who can't be bothered to do some minimum for themselves when capable? Not really.

Something like drug use or crimes against others in the place... immediate boot out the door.

The whole point of "assistance" is supposed to be that it's only temporary and is something one strives to get off of because it's so horrible. But for the last few decades, we've become so worried about how people feel all the time that we've removed any stigma of being on the dole, and made it so that it is more of a lifestyle choice than the pain it should be. The same kind of thinking that has turned the penal system from one of punishment (hence the root word penal) into one of "rehabilitation."

I'd be pretty strict on what kind of mental or physical issues were enough to allow someone to truly be on the dole for life too. I have a few co workers that are legally blind and they work their asses off.

My dad worked for AT&T from the 70's until about 1990 and he had stories of working on phone systems in the local CA welfare (or whatever it is/was called) offices. They had people working banks of phones who's job it was to call people on the dole in other states, and convince them to move here. When your system is setup to not only reward keeping as many people on it, but to grow it... it's destined to fail to actually help anyone.

For those bleeding hearts who feel a system like that would be too harsh: feel free to give more of your own money to support people that won't work. Stop taking everyone else's to support them though.

Pirate Jo says:

I have a solution.

Each and every U.S. citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, and providing they have no children, can sign up for welfare if they want, and they can have it for as long as they want, even their entire lives.
__________________________

Sounds pretty interesting, but I suspect too many people would sign up for it! Even to the point of getting themselves sterilized - for free, that is.

I think PARENTS could do something like that. They could tell a daughter: "You can stay here another year or two, rent-free, IF you get an IUD or something else you can't easily forget to use."

They could tell a son: "Same deal for you, IF you consent to be a guinea pig for RISUG, aka Vasalgel." (Which lasts ten years or so. It's supposed to be available by 2015, which is sooner than the usual projection of 5-10 years!)

Oh, and I would add: For those who WANT to leave home before 18 - or 21, depending on the local laws - maybe the parent could say "fine, so long as you go to the doctor and get this."

Of course, that would only work if the minor did not have the legal right to have the device removed!

I suspect too many people would sign up for it!

Well, if the tax base doesn't support it, we'll just print more!!

"Also, will people ever get out of the shelters?"

A lot of them won't. I need to go dig up a study I linked to here some while back. It showed that the population of people who go on welfare is pretty bifurcated. There's a large group of people who go on welfare but get back off of it within six months. However, for people who remain on for at least a year, the odds are high that they will still be on welfare five years later.

For some people, welfare is economic morphine. Once they start taking it, it's effectively the end of their lives. It's both an economic calamity and a human tragedy.

I agree with JimP's comment. Back in the 80s a friend lived in a state that had a generous initial welfare payment, but only raised the check 5 or 10 dollars for subsequent children. She was absolutely smart enough to get her tubes tied.
It won't solve the problem, but its a start.

It won't solve the problem, but its a start. -- bmused at August 23, 2013 4:17 PM

Thanks bmused. The idea is that a suddenly single or widowed SAHM has time to get back on her feet. But it doesn't encourage long term behavior.

Another one is that after a period of time the recipients will have to bring themselves, and during the summer children, to a combined hiring hall, community center, unemployment office, day care center. The recipients will have to pay for the meals with their SNAP card at a discount rate.

It will be an 8-5 job to be there. If they aren't there, the recipient's benefits will be docked.

I'm more than willing to give someone a year to look for solutions. But after that recipients no longer get a free ride.