President Trump Targets Welfare Reform
The Trump administration is considering making some “hyuge” changes to the nation’s welfare system, after President Trump made claims that welfare policies were being misused.
During a speech in St. Charles, MO, the president said,
“I know people, they work three jobs, and they live next to somebody who doesn’t work at all. And the person that is not working at all, and has no intention of working at all, is making more money and doing better than the person that’s working his or her ass off.”
Welfare reform has historically been a difficult agenda item that has been met with severe resistance whenever a politician proposes it.
The most common axiom with regards to this subject is that it is difficult to win an argument with a person who is playing Santa Clause.
In other words, when a political party enacts an entitlement program or an increase in an entitlement program, the side that wants to reverse, cut, or eliminate the entitlement program is suddenly the bad guy while the side that enacted the entitlement program is known as the side of compassion for their willingness to give away other people’s money.
Though the details of Trump’s welfare reform have not been released, as of yet, there have been several ideas that have been suggested by others that would have an effect on the welfare state.
One idea is to put a cap on the number of government sponsored children that a person has. The government would offer assistance for the first one, two, or three children that a low-income household has, while on welfare, but then it would cut off assistance for any additional children.
This would motivate people to be a little bit more accountable and would stop those who are reproducing for the sole purpose of getting a bigger welfare check each month.
Obviously, there are some flaws to such a reformation, and critics would be able to come up with scenarios in which a family might feel punished if such measures were enacted, but the idea is there.
Another thought would be limiting the type of items that welfare recipients could purchase with their food stamp cards. By taking away junk food and soda, the idea is that the welfare recipients will be motivated to make changes in their lives to get off of the system and to provide for themselves. This one has some added health benefits when families cut back on the amount of sugar they are ingesting.
Florida has tried banning junk food from being purchased with food stamps, though the efforts have failed.
Another idea that has been bandied about is the elimination of the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards. These food stamp cards, which look like debit cards, were created for the purpose of reducing the amount of shame that a person might feel for being on food stamps in the first place.
The idea behind going back to actual paper stamps to purchase food items is that it would make those on welfare uncomfortable enough to do what it takes to get off the system.
Obviously, each of these proposals have their ups and downs, and there’s no indication that the Trump administration is considering these specific ideas. These are just possibilities that have been considered by politicians in the past.
What do you think? Do you think the welfare system needs to be reformed? Would you support any of the above proposals?