Anyone who even casually is exposed to or follows the news can discern that the current, raging debate and controversy in the Presidential campaigns center around government programs and about what should be done about them and about our current President's supposed current role in "keeping them alive" for the purpose of "getting welfare recipients to vote for him." The philosophy of Republicans and the more the more conservative the more pronounced, is that government should not give people anything that would discourage what they call "personal responsibility," and this includes anything that would supposedly discourage the motive to work and make one's way in life. The Democrats and the more liberal the more pronounced is the befief, that while people do have "personal responsibility," that the government has a social responsibility to provide a safety net for vulnerable people in our society through government programs.
But even before this debate that is going on, I have seen a widespread resentment of people who use government programs and misconceptions about what is welfare and about people who use government programs, including those that are, in fact, welfare. One day, recently, I was scrolling through my Facebook homepage. In my newsfeed streamed a poster bearing thse words, "So I'm supposed to be outraged about how Mitt Romney Spends HIS money? How about how President Obama spends MY tax dollars? And underneath this photo, four people clicked the "like" button, displaying their approval of the poster and its sentiment. Yes, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, but in an economy like this, we need to be concerned about the way all $$$ are spent.
The posting of that photo, to me, is free speech. But posts like other are not; they lean closer to "hate speech." Many months ago one morning, I had just logged into Facebook and this vitriolic post, all in capitals, stared at me: This Facebook user was bitterly lashing out at "welfare bums" who "live it up and use the system." She went on and on with her bitter diatribe. Then she finished with, "AND YOU GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I EAT MY NOODLES!"
I know that this stereotype of people who use government programs is widespread. In my network is one of many Facebook users who make no secret of their political leanings. I see nothing wrong with that as long as people share their views graciously, politely and respect differences. However, most people do not take this approach when they "get political. I have seldom seen it, in person or online. One Facebook user has been explicit in her contempt for "welfare bums." One day, I was scrolling through my homepage when a post by this user leapt out at me. Her post thundered about the uselessness of people who "sponge off on the US taxpayer" and that when this user's candidate of choice presumably took office, that the "free ride of the welfare bums will end!"
Medicaid is the federal program that addresses the basic health care needs of qualifying US citizens. Many years ago, the Republican Governor who was in office at the time, Gov. Matt Blunt,
as a way to cut the Missouri budget, made a package of cuts to many Missouri programs, including many that helped the most vulnerable and needy in our state. He made cuts to Medicaid. So I found a petition to restore Medicaid and end the cuts to it in our state and got involved. I got a good response to my effort to collect signatures. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, saying firmly, "Sorry to punish children for the sins of their parents but I have seen adults cash in on their EBT cards to get liquor. I cannot support this." Another person refused to sign, stating, "I don't support the project; in fact, I support some of thse cuts."
I have struggled with what to think about mandatory drug-testing, as I would like to see the serious drug epidemic come to an end. Should ANYONE be subjected to such drug-testing? Over and over, when scrolling through my homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like, "Whatever you think of my views, I'm in favor of people applying for government assistance to be drug-tested. Why should our tax dollars go to drug addicts who do not work? Those of us who do work and earn our money get drug-tested; what about those who get benefits for nothing?" Every time this status is reposted, multiple users hit the "like" button underneath it to show their approval of this status. I have no doubt that some people who use government programs of any kind use drugs, but the way the programs are set up, those who apply for government programs are carefully screened and "due diligence" is done on their lifestyles and there are stiff penalties for any who dare abuse benefits by using them for drugs.
Food Stamps is a Federal Program that supplements the nutritional needs of qualifying US citizens. Recently, a certain politician said of the current US President and as no compliment to President Obama: "Barack Obama is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
The misonconception that poor people are lazy and do not want to work, is very widespread in our culture. The fact is that most DO work; many work at low-paying jobs with no benefits. Others who "live on wefare" are busy raising their families and volunteering their time. And often, many hours must be spent simply filling out forms, waiting in lines and "getting" reviewed to ensure that they qualify. But even politicians hold misconceptions about their constituents who are poor. Recently, one politician, obviously annoyed with the debate about the "merits" of making cuts to the "Big Three," Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, declared, "I agree that the poor need something. They need the opportunity to learn the responsibility of work."
At one time I listened to a talk show run by a very conservative talk show host, mostly for entertainment. One day, though, I grew furious at him when he ranted at poor people in general. He ranted, "The poor should stop getting their taxes cut! It is time that they begin paying their share and it is called PAYING TAXES! I say an end to the free ride once and for all!" In anger, I turned my radio off! To me, this was NOT free speech but rather, hate speech. Plus, it showed how uninformed and prejudiced this talk show host was in defining "work" as being only paid, gainful employment.
I was on Facebook one day and was circulating a petition calling for stopping any efforts to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the top entitlement programs, to balance the budget. I posted the petition's link to a certain fan page, which turned out to be a mistake. I got Facebook notifications that people were commenting on my post, so I checked to see what people were saying. People said things along the lines that many people who use these three entitlements are among "the underserving poor," whic, to the minds of those posting, included "illegal aliens" and those who refuse to work, whoever they are; people said to be irresponsible, freeriders, and parasites who "abuse the system." The fact is, that thse three programs, as "entitlement programs," are VERY strict in who can use them and they are not counted as welfare programs in that they are not (except for Medicaid) based on financial need) but on age or (in the case of Social Security Disability) on disability or, in the case of Veteran's benefits, US veteran status. In other words, one must be "deserving" to use thse programs. Yes, I know that some do slip between the cracks and use these programs illegitimately, but they are exceptions.
We talk about the value of "stay-at-home moms" on one hand, but when poor woman use government benefits and take on this role, the tone changes to the need for those woman to "get off their duffs and go to work." Years ago, I read an article called, We Value Stay-At-Home Moms, Unless They are Poor." The point of the article was my point here, that we talk "out of both ends of our mouths" when we laud women who stay at home while their husbands work paid jobs, while castigating poor women on benefits who take on this role, trashing as "lazy, welfare bums," those moms who used Aid to Dependent Children (now Temporary Assistance To Needy Families) to make ends meet. Years ago, in college class, we were discussing the topic of depency on the government as "Big Brother." The topic got on that of poor single moms who use government assistance. The professor was saying, "These women can get out and work. They just have to take their children with them, even if they have to take them on the bus."
I know and freely acknowledge that there are always those people who slip between the cracks and "work the system" and use it in their unfair favor. I have witnessed that and I do not condone it at all. Some who collect benefits do not use them for the purpose that thse benefits were intended. They hurt not only the taxpayers and waste and steal government $$$, but they give a bad name to all the deserving MAJORITY of those who are forced, by life circumstances to use these programs. Most people who use thse programs, given the choice and the right circumstances and where needed, the support, would much rather be gainfully employed or be helped to start their own businesses. Most know how they are perceived by their society. I see posts angrily castigating those who make "collecting benefits their careers" and are being aided and abetted by the government which is now accused of "funding the lazy." I know that many people will continue to entertain the notion that people who use government programs are somehow able to enjoy lives of ease and even lavish lifestyles. Those who may actually do that are in the MINORITY of those who lie to the system and who should not be collecting any government benefits.
And what about the Ryan Plan? I have not mentioned that until now, but a HUGE part of this proposed program includes cuts, over time, to these programs and such cuts would especially hurt future generations. Since the author of this proposed program is the running mate of Mitt Romney, and it is a major part of the Presidential race to the White House, we all need to take the time to inform ourselves about what can profoundly affect almost all US citizens who are not independently wealthy. It personally angers me greatly that, instead of raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires (which even some of them are calling for!), we are having to base our votes, in part, on a plan that proposes to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it!
I am providing materials which give facts about the candidates, welfare, entitlements and the Ryan Plan. I hope that you will take the time to read these materials and educate yourself about things that profoundly affect all of our lives. In my opinion, if we would spend more time doing "due diligence" about these poeople who have power over all areas of our lives, we would make more informed decisions about who rises to power. In a free country, we get the government we deserve.
http://cobacourses.creighton.edu/businesscommunity/new773/wfm.htm
This article gives the facts about welfare. The writers are based in Omaha, Nebraska but the article includes a national study and answers basic questions.
http://usaunemploymentbenefits.com/welfare-facts/
This article gives the basics about government programs in general and links to other informative sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity
This is a comprehensive analysis of the Ryan Plan, very detailed.
http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html
This article discusses the Ryan Plan is is affects Medicare.
http://politifact.com
This is a comprehensive website that examintes the truth and accuracy of the words of politicians
Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
About Government Programs
The other day I was scrolling through my homepage when a post caught my eye. The poster declared, "So I'm supposed to be outraged at what Mitt Romney does with HIS money? What about what President Obama does with MY tax dollars?" And underneath this poster, four people had hit the "like" button to signal their approval of this poster's sentiment.
Many months ago, I logged into Facebook one morning and an obviously angry, bitter post jumped out at me. The Facebook user posted with all capital letters, lashing out viciously at "welfare bums" who "live the good life on my tax dollars." This user let her subjects have it with her vitriolic rant. The user finished savagely: "AND YOU CAN GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I HAVE MY NOODLES!"
One Facebook user who has been in my social network for a long time, makes no secret of her political leanings and has made clear her resentment for people who use government assistance. One day, I was logged into Facebook and was scrolling through my homepage. One of this user's posts jumped out at me. This user's status went something like: " People who depend on Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid, or other welfare programs are sponging off MY taxes. Mr. President, I'm sick and tired of the way you spend MY tax $$$ to spread the wealth! One day the free ride will end and these welfare bums will have to get out and work!"
Years ago, when our Missouri Governor Matt Blunt rose to power, he made a package of deep and painful cuts to the Missouri Medicaid program. When he left office, I got involved in circulating a petition to restore Medicaid to its original state, ending those cuts. A good number of people signed the petition but I was struck by the responses of those who would not sign. I circulated the petition at our local church where we were attending at the time. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, declaring: "Sorry but I will not sign this. I hate to punish the children for the sins of the parents but I have seen adults pull out the EBT cards and use them to get alcohol." I approached another person twice and the second time, I was told, "Sorry, I am not signing. I just don't don't believe I'm informed enough about this." One more person I approached said, "No I'm not signing. I agree with some of those cuts." One fellow parishioner simply said, "I'm not interested."
Over and over, in looking at my Facebook homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like: "Whatever you think of my views, I hope you will have the courage to agree with this: We are in favor of those who apply for public assistance having to submit to drug-testing. Why should our tax dollars have to go to drug addicts who won't work? Those of us who work and earn our money have to submit to drug testing; what about those who want government benefits for nothing?" Every time someone reposts this status, other Facebook users hit the "like" button underneath this post to signal their approval of this status.
Not long ago, a certain politician, meaning his words as no compliment to President Obama, declared with a measure of contempt, "Our current President is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
A few months ago, in Washingtom and in Congress, politicians were battling over the national budget and over the whether or not to make cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And a politician, clearly fed up with this debate, stated: "I think we need to give the poor something. No argument with that. We need to give them the opportunity to pay their way and to know the dignity of personal responsibilty through requring them to get out and work."
Years ago, I liked a certain ultraconservative talk show host and listened to his radio talk show for a time. I agreed with his sentiments on a number of issues though I thought he bullied those he didn't agree with. One day, though, my opinions on his bullying were confirmed when he ranted about "those welfare bums." This talk show host ranted, "It's high time for these poor, welfare bums to start paying their fair share! It's called paying taxes, people! I say we need to end the free ride once and for all!" Angrily, I turned the radio off.
One day, I got on Facebook to circulate an online petition calling for President Obama to fight all efforts to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the national debt. I posted the petition on a certain Facebook fan page. This proved to be an apparent mistake. Checking my Facebook notifications, I could see that I got prompt comments on the petition. To sum up the comments, Facebook users on that page declared that users of "the big three" were often among the "undeserving poor" who live lives of fiscal irresponsibility, who seek a free ride in life and are social parasites who use the system to their own ends.
More recently, I scrolled through my homepage one day and saw several Facebook users post an article about one wealthy couple, who collected Food Stamps yet who nevertheless enjoyed hugely extravagant, lavish lifestyles of travel and leisure.
Years ago, I read an article that fully echoed my sentiments about the hypocritical mind-set that applauds the virtues of stay-at-home mothers, while at the same time despising and trashing as "welfare bums" those moms who use the Temorary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF and was once called Aid to Dependent Children), to stay at home with their children. That article was called, "We Value At-Home Moms Unless They are Poor." About that time, one person said to me and others, "If these moms can't afford to drive they can take their kids with them on the bus and go to work."
Many years ago, I was viewing a talk show. When it was one troubled guest's time to present her needs, the guest psychologist who was advising her on her situation said something that has stuck in my mind to this day. This woman snapped at the person, "And MY tax dollars will NOT be going to subsidize you staying at home and doing nothing!"
Currently, I have been a frequent visitor to this one website for a nonprofit organization that awards grants to individuals who have short-term, one-time financial needs which can't be met anywhere else. In taking note of the anonymous applicationsthat are posted, I have noticed a trend. At this website, donors get to recommend the applications that they would like to see get funded first. It seems that the applications that are prioritized by the nonprofit, that get most recommended by donors for faster funding and therefore tend to get funded fastest, are the ones placed by employed applicants. The applicants who are listed as using government assistance seem to get fewer donor recommendations for funding and seem to take more time getting funded.
All these examples and many, many more, only underscore how those who use government programs as their source of income are perceived by society. Yes, I know that this one blog isn't going to make any dent in changing how many people see government programs and those who use them. The resentment is too deep-seated and widespread for that. It's just that I'm seeing so much of this resentment that amounts almost to behaving like people actually get rich using the programs and use the programs as a ticket to "the good life."
Now I'm fully aware, as much as anyone, that there are people who abuse the system and government assistance, just as there are people who will abuse any good or service. This is why the use of these government programs, especially means-tested, need-based programs, come with a set of strict rules for screening, benefits and carry strict penalties if these terms are found to be violated. Persons who "use the system" for their own ends and are caught only increase the stigma of using these programs for all other users. Lazy people who are unwilling to work have always been with us. That's why the Bible says, "If a man will not work, let him not have the right to eat."
Here's what everyone needs to know about Social Security and Medicare. These two programs are "entitlement" programs for all those age 65 and over where they draw off their own work records or off the work record of a spouse. These programs are a "safety net" for senior citizens when they retire. These "entitlement programs" are unlike the more stigmatizing programs where users must must follow many more rules to become eligible for these programs and to remain eligible and where they must be periodically "reviewed." Survivor's Benefits and the Veteran's Administration (VA) are also "entitlement programs with little stigma.
Social Security Disability (SSD) is also an "entitlement program" for people whose disabilities are documented as ones that render them unable to get and keep a job. People who use SSD are also covered under Medicare. Use of this program comes with period reviews that are meant to prove that the user is still disabled." This program carries more stigma than Social Security for seniors as it's for younger people under 65. SSD is incredibly difficult to be approved for and calls for much paperwork and standard procedures to be followed. Attempts to get and keep employment can endanger SSD benefits and signal that the user "can work and therefore is not disabled."
Supplementary Security Income (SSI) is needs-based and for people who are documented as living below the poverty level and/or have a documented disability. These things hold true for the federal Food Stamp program and Medicaid, which is administered by each of the 50 states. WIC (Women, Infants and Children) covers children age 5 and under and who are born to moms using the TANF program.These government programs carry the most stigma of all, came attached with many rules to follow for eligibility and can change at any time. Users must be "reviewed" on a regular basis. These are programs no one wants to need but they serve as lifesavers if needed to survive.
I know that many people are fortunate enough to be in life circumstances where they have never had to use any government programs and have the $$$ to not need them, whatever their circumstances. I would not wish them to need these programs. However, we never know what life will hold for us and if we will need any of these programs at any given time. People who trash "welfare bums" and the users of needs-based programs do not realize that any of us at any time can find ourselves in situations where we may be compelled to use these needs-based programs or even so-called entitlements like SSD or Survivor's Benefits. And if we US citizens are blessed enough to live to turn age 65, we will use Social Security and Medicare.
Despite the stories of wealthy people who collect government programs and others who apply for benefits under false pretenses, these are exceptions, not the rule. We ought not to make our judgments on anything based on exceptions. The overwhelming majority of people who use entitlements like SSD or means-tested programs like SSI, Food Stamps, Medicaid and others, do not get wealthy on these programs. Not by any means! People who use these programs do so just to survive and benefits cover bare needs and not frills or extras. There is little to no incentive to save $$$ as there is often not enough money for the entire month. And married people who use these programs get penalized which reflects the value, or lack of it, that the US government places on marriage. Most users would much rather, if they had the choice, be gainfully employed instead of using these programs. Also, we must never forget that these programs keep many people from life in the streets who would other wise be homeless. Medicare and even Medicaid reduce the number of uninsured people who add to ever-rising healthcare costs.
And now our US government wants to make cuts to these programs, not only to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but also to all the needs-based programs. All in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the deficit! Even Catholic Bishops are taking note of the current debate and are decrying these proposed cuts as immoral and inhumane.
If you are among those who tend to feel contempt for those who use government assistance and especially the needs-based variety, remember that you or a loved one may one day find yourselves in circumstances where you need such assistance.
Many months ago, I logged into Facebook one morning and an obviously angry, bitter post jumped out at me. The Facebook user posted with all capital letters, lashing out viciously at "welfare bums" who "live the good life on my tax dollars." This user let her subjects have it with her vitriolic rant. The user finished savagely: "AND YOU CAN GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I HAVE MY NOODLES!"
One Facebook user who has been in my social network for a long time, makes no secret of her political leanings and has made clear her resentment for people who use government assistance. One day, I was logged into Facebook and was scrolling through my homepage. One of this user's posts jumped out at me. This user's status went something like: " People who depend on Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid, or other welfare programs are sponging off MY taxes. Mr. President, I'm sick and tired of the way you spend MY tax $$$ to spread the wealth! One day the free ride will end and these welfare bums will have to get out and work!"
Years ago, when our Missouri Governor Matt Blunt rose to power, he made a package of deep and painful cuts to the Missouri Medicaid program. When he left office, I got involved in circulating a petition to restore Medicaid to its original state, ending those cuts. A good number of people signed the petition but I was struck by the responses of those who would not sign. I circulated the petition at our local church where we were attending at the time. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, declaring: "Sorry but I will not sign this. I hate to punish the children for the sins of the parents but I have seen adults pull out the EBT cards and use them to get alcohol." I approached another person twice and the second time, I was told, "Sorry, I am not signing. I just don't don't believe I'm informed enough about this." One more person I approached said, "No I'm not signing. I agree with some of those cuts." One fellow parishioner simply said, "I'm not interested."
Over and over, in looking at my Facebook homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like: "Whatever you think of my views, I hope you will have the courage to agree with this: We are in favor of those who apply for public assistance having to submit to drug-testing. Why should our tax dollars have to go to drug addicts who won't work? Those of us who work and earn our money have to submit to drug testing; what about those who want government benefits for nothing?" Every time someone reposts this status, other Facebook users hit the "like" button underneath this post to signal their approval of this status.
Not long ago, a certain politician, meaning his words as no compliment to President Obama, declared with a measure of contempt, "Our current President is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
A few months ago, in Washingtom and in Congress, politicians were battling over the national budget and over the whether or not to make cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And a politician, clearly fed up with this debate, stated: "I think we need to give the poor something. No argument with that. We need to give them the opportunity to pay their way and to know the dignity of personal responsibilty through requring them to get out and work."
Years ago, I liked a certain ultraconservative talk show host and listened to his radio talk show for a time. I agreed with his sentiments on a number of issues though I thought he bullied those he didn't agree with. One day, though, my opinions on his bullying were confirmed when he ranted about "those welfare bums." This talk show host ranted, "It's high time for these poor, welfare bums to start paying their fair share! It's called paying taxes, people! I say we need to end the free ride once and for all!" Angrily, I turned the radio off.
One day, I got on Facebook to circulate an online petition calling for President Obama to fight all efforts to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the national debt. I posted the petition on a certain Facebook fan page. This proved to be an apparent mistake. Checking my Facebook notifications, I could see that I got prompt comments on the petition. To sum up the comments, Facebook users on that page declared that users of "the big three" were often among the "undeserving poor" who live lives of fiscal irresponsibility, who seek a free ride in life and are social parasites who use the system to their own ends.
More recently, I scrolled through my homepage one day and saw several Facebook users post an article about one wealthy couple, who collected Food Stamps yet who nevertheless enjoyed hugely extravagant, lavish lifestyles of travel and leisure.
Years ago, I read an article that fully echoed my sentiments about the hypocritical mind-set that applauds the virtues of stay-at-home mothers, while at the same time despising and trashing as "welfare bums" those moms who use the Temorary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF and was once called Aid to Dependent Children), to stay at home with their children. That article was called, "We Value At-Home Moms Unless They are Poor." About that time, one person said to me and others, "If these moms can't afford to drive they can take their kids with them on the bus and go to work."
Many years ago, I was viewing a talk show. When it was one troubled guest's time to present her needs, the guest psychologist who was advising her on her situation said something that has stuck in my mind to this day. This woman snapped at the person, "And MY tax dollars will NOT be going to subsidize you staying at home and doing nothing!"
Currently, I have been a frequent visitor to this one website for a nonprofit organization that awards grants to individuals who have short-term, one-time financial needs which can't be met anywhere else. In taking note of the anonymous applicationsthat are posted, I have noticed a trend. At this website, donors get to recommend the applications that they would like to see get funded first. It seems that the applications that are prioritized by the nonprofit, that get most recommended by donors for faster funding and therefore tend to get funded fastest, are the ones placed by employed applicants. The applicants who are listed as using government assistance seem to get fewer donor recommendations for funding and seem to take more time getting funded.
All these examples and many, many more, only underscore how those who use government programs as their source of income are perceived by society. Yes, I know that this one blog isn't going to make any dent in changing how many people see government programs and those who use them. The resentment is too deep-seated and widespread for that. It's just that I'm seeing so much of this resentment that amounts almost to behaving like people actually get rich using the programs and use the programs as a ticket to "the good life."
Now I'm fully aware, as much as anyone, that there are people who abuse the system and government assistance, just as there are people who will abuse any good or service. This is why the use of these government programs, especially means-tested, need-based programs, come with a set of strict rules for screening, benefits and carry strict penalties if these terms are found to be violated. Persons who "use the system" for their own ends and are caught only increase the stigma of using these programs for all other users. Lazy people who are unwilling to work have always been with us. That's why the Bible says, "If a man will not work, let him not have the right to eat."
Here's what everyone needs to know about Social Security and Medicare. These two programs are "entitlement" programs for all those age 65 and over where they draw off their own work records or off the work record of a spouse. These programs are a "safety net" for senior citizens when they retire. These "entitlement programs" are unlike the more stigmatizing programs where users must must follow many more rules to become eligible for these programs and to remain eligible and where they must be periodically "reviewed." Survivor's Benefits and the Veteran's Administration (VA) are also "entitlement programs with little stigma.
Social Security Disability (SSD) is also an "entitlement program" for people whose disabilities are documented as ones that render them unable to get and keep a job. People who use SSD are also covered under Medicare. Use of this program comes with period reviews that are meant to prove that the user is still disabled." This program carries more stigma than Social Security for seniors as it's for younger people under 65. SSD is incredibly difficult to be approved for and calls for much paperwork and standard procedures to be followed. Attempts to get and keep employment can endanger SSD benefits and signal that the user "can work and therefore is not disabled."
Supplementary Security Income (SSI) is needs-based and for people who are documented as living below the poverty level and/or have a documented disability. These things hold true for the federal Food Stamp program and Medicaid, which is administered by each of the 50 states. WIC (Women, Infants and Children) covers children age 5 and under and who are born to moms using the TANF program.These government programs carry the most stigma of all, came attached with many rules to follow for eligibility and can change at any time. Users must be "reviewed" on a regular basis. These are programs no one wants to need but they serve as lifesavers if needed to survive.
I know that many people are fortunate enough to be in life circumstances where they have never had to use any government programs and have the $$$ to not need them, whatever their circumstances. I would not wish them to need these programs. However, we never know what life will hold for us and if we will need any of these programs at any given time. People who trash "welfare bums" and the users of needs-based programs do not realize that any of us at any time can find ourselves in situations where we may be compelled to use these needs-based programs or even so-called entitlements like SSD or Survivor's Benefits. And if we US citizens are blessed enough to live to turn age 65, we will use Social Security and Medicare.
Despite the stories of wealthy people who collect government programs and others who apply for benefits under false pretenses, these are exceptions, not the rule. We ought not to make our judgments on anything based on exceptions. The overwhelming majority of people who use entitlements like SSD or means-tested programs like SSI, Food Stamps, Medicaid and others, do not get wealthy on these programs. Not by any means! People who use these programs do so just to survive and benefits cover bare needs and not frills or extras. There is little to no incentive to save $$$ as there is often not enough money for the entire month. And married people who use these programs get penalized which reflects the value, or lack of it, that the US government places on marriage. Most users would much rather, if they had the choice, be gainfully employed instead of using these programs. Also, we must never forget that these programs keep many people from life in the streets who would other wise be homeless. Medicare and even Medicaid reduce the number of uninsured people who add to ever-rising healthcare costs.
And now our US government wants to make cuts to these programs, not only to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but also to all the needs-based programs. All in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the deficit! Even Catholic Bishops are taking note of the current debate and are decrying these proposed cuts as immoral and inhumane.
If you are among those who tend to feel contempt for those who use government assistance and especially the needs-based variety, remember that you or a loved one may one day find yourselves in circumstances where you need such assistance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)