(TANF is the allegedly TEMPORARY Aid to Needy Families... or, as aficionados call it, Welfare.)
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a product of a few years of the Welfare State: my single-mom-driven family received welfare, at least while she was going to "Edison Technical College" or what is now Seattle Community College or whatever they call it this week, so she could become a Licensed Practical Nurse.
I mention that so the casual reader won't think for a moment that I don't know.... from both ends of this equation... what I'm talking about.
There's a long list of things we didn't have during this time.. and of course, for the most part, those things didn't exist.
But their existence today doesn't equate to necessity today.
As a taxpayer in a business still operating... but having taken a 50% plus hit in revenue... I have to wonder: Should the state with their police power have the right to use that power to take money away from me to give it to others so they can use it for obvious non-necessities like, say, first grade class pictures?
What about beer? Should they be able to take money from me so that those receiving those allowances from us can buy beer or other alcohol?
What about drugs? Is it OK to have the state's hand dive into YOUR wallet to support someone else's desire to do drugs?
And cigarettes. Are we buying them for grateful welfare families?
What about cable TV? What about the internet? What about the computer habit?
One of the more blatant examples of stupidity is that listed in the whining today in the local zit:
The family moved to Vancouver eight months ago from Brooksville, Fla., north of Tampa, with hope of starting a better life. Brooksville’s economy was worse than Clark County’s. Brooksville has more than 13 percent unemployment and no job growth, compared with a 12 percent unemployment rate in Clark County and modest job growth.So, they just said "the hell with it," packed up a car and picked this garden spot of joblessness to "start a better life?"
The family was excited when Jackson’s mother quickly landed a job as an accounts receivable clerk in Vancouver. Just six months later, however, her mother was laid off.
Bull. They came up here because our welfare requirements are non-existent compared to the rest of the country, and our welfare fraud investigations are non-existent, compared to the rest of the country.
When I was on staff, we'd frequently run into welfare recipient families with multiple accounts because our computer system was so idiotic that someone getting welfare in, say, Bellingham, could simultaneously get the same set of benefits out of, say, Vancouver.... because our computers didn't talk to each other.
And then, of course, there's the joy of being able to ALSO draw welfare benefits from Oregon, because, while our computers couldn't talk to each other, they damned sure couldn't talk to other states, either.
Does that mean these people are committing some sort of fraud? No, I have no evidence of that.
But the idea that they would uproot and land here out of all the places on the map in the country?
And taking it a step further, why the hell would they leave one high unemployment area for another high unemployment area?
And how responsible is it to have a child at age 16 and not give it up for adoption? Well, unless a free meal ticket is the goal?
And how can this woman POSSIBLY afford to go to Portland Community College, living over here? Who's paying for her tuition, books and fees? Who's paying for her transportation across the river? Why GO across the river when we have Clark College right here? Does any of this make any sense at all?
I, of course, am the resident cynic. But when I see this quote from the grateful recipients ripping us off:
The family now lives off her mother’s unemployment benefits. On Thursday, Jackson was approved for a TANF grant of $380 per month to help pay for her and her daughter’s expenses.
“I’m hoping it’s going to be very temporary,” Jackson said. “It’s not a lot of money, but it definitely helps, especially because it’s Christmas. My daughter is in the first grade, and I have to pay for school pictures.”I've got to wonder:
Does this simple idiot realize that we're not giving this allegedly "needy" family ANY money for first grade pictures, and that you can, actually, live without them while you're stealing money from me to pay for them?
See, you DON'T have to pay for them... you don't NEED them at all.
"Need" is an interesting word. Clearly, neither the state nor this woman understand the meaning of it. Because in this case, the line between "need" and "want" is not only blurred.... it's non-existent.
For example, I drag race. I bought a car to drag race in. The care "needs" either another torque converter or a flex plate or both.... and I can't run it without it. Of course, in this neck of the woods, racing is done for this season, so I can't run it anyway.
But I don't "need" to drag race. So, replacing these parts (and going to a higher stall converter... like at least a 3000 or so) are things the CAR "needs" to run.
But like the moron and her pictures, I "WANT" to race... like she WANTS to get pictures she doesn't need.
Oh, yeah.... and by the way? my torque converter/SFI flex plate purchase?
I won't be getting a dime from the government for either.... but this kid is going to have her not-needed purchase subsidized by you and me.
And with equal clarity, it's time to put an end to that... actually, long passed time to do that.
Clearly, we are not cutting TANF and the programs like it nearly enough. Clearly, hundreds of millions of our dollars are going to pure crap like, well, first grade pictures. Clearly, we should not be paying for cell phones, drugs, internet, cable TV, cigarettes and the like. Clearly, welfare recipients should be tested for drugs and alcohol and nicotine as a condition of receiving these grants of public largess.
And nows as good a time as any to get it done.
"Welfare" is difficult to fit into an ideology. Marxists, of course, believe that those who have more should be forced to give to those who don't. And Conservatives have religious teachings advocating helping those less fortunate than themselves. Because both groups kind of agree on something, without a proper understanding, exploitation occurs.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, this is where Socialists have the right answer. A Socialist believes that the many come before the few. A true Socialist would say that "the many" would benefit by helping "the few" - up to the point where "the few" are taking precedence over "the many."