richardhutnik said:
Care to explain how you end up cutting out fraud, without hiring people to administer the programs? You hire people to cut out fraud and then you have to pay their salaries and whatnot. |
We already have the people working at the agencies, all we need are cold hard rules with no way around them.
It's all suposed to be a safety net, but people have used it as a comfy hammock that they just want to lie in forever.
If there's a rule that says you have to work/volunteer 40 hours a week to be eligable for welfare and someone can't prove they did it then they don't get the help. This would enourage people to just get the closest thing to a full time job they can becuase even minimum wage would pay better than welfare with mandatory volunteer work. If your going to do 40 hours of work you might as well get paid for it and if you can't find a full time job and still need help you'll get that help so long as you volunteer the rest of the time you would be working.
If there's a rule that says you can't do drugs and you test positive then they don't get help without entering a sobriety program. This would get a lot of drug abusers into real programs and people off the street.
Thats just to examples of ways to make welfare a hand up rather than a hand out. It was never meant to be a way for people to get away with being lazy or addicted. It was supposed to be a way to get people on their feet so they can keep going long enough to pull themselves back up by their own bootstraps.
The rules are too lax and the system has too many cracks. You don't need more people to fill in thoe cracks, you just have to make the rules water tight.
