Maria Cline

Berrett
English 1010
28 April 2016
Welfare: Fair for Whom?
Welfare has been argued by all sides of the political spectrum ever since Franklin
Roosevelt established it in America in 1935. He created the system to help people rise above
financial distress. President Roosevelts plan was to keep the barrier between the welfare
recipients and their moral disintegration high while seeking government assistance. From the
1940s through the 1980s, officials disagreed on his plan and kept lowering the standards. Instead
of encouraging welfare recipients to pursue a more independent lifestyle while accepting
welfare, they feel more entitled to the government (Olasky 2). Officials are currently making
changes to a plan that was once meant to help individuals re-enter society. By doing so, the
welfare system has spiraled into a permanent state of disorder. The current United States welfare
system was once a helping hand, but due to the recipients abusing the system, it now merely
acts as a draining system of free handouts.
As a result of the Great Depression, poverty was the reason for the development of the
welfare system. In the 1990s, more than 33.6 million people in the United States were living in
poverty. Welfare recipients live in poverty due to unemployment, addiction, abandoned children,
and homelessness. Roughly one out of seven was considered to be poor (Kronwetter 13). Since
the 1990s, the number of welfare recipients has increased tremendously in regard to people
wanting assistance rather than truly needing it. Statistics show in 2011, there were 108,592,000

people on welfare (2014 Poverty Guidelines 1-2). The number will continue to expand if the
system continues to grow with abuse.
In order for the system to run, money comes from taxes paid by the working class. When
the income of the wealthy increases, so does the flow of handouts. The only difference from the
1990s until now it that taxes have increased for the working class. The increase lures the needy
into dependent and dysfunctional lifestyles. Once an individual seeks help from the government,
they realize how easy it is to stay on assistance, and quickly change their way of living from
work to complacency. The following is former President Ronald Reagans response to the way
the welfare system was running under President Carters command in 1973:
They [Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and
promise to cure it. Theyve cured it so often that theyve now made a profession
of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, on aiding victims, and so forth.
It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business.
No matter how many programs are set up and operating their proponents never
claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved,
meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems,
are their very reason for being. (They [Democrats] are the 1)
With that said, people suffering from living a life of poverty caused the government to create
programs for the poor. In 2013, the welfare system operated sixty-nine programs to assist the
poor and lower income. These programs currently include public assistance, entitlements,
general assistance, veteran benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, and food
stamps. The agencies and programs work together to help Americans attain their basic needs

(Kronwetter 15). Since welfare benefits are tax free, the dollar value of a welfare recipient is
greater than the income of the worker would have left over after their pretax income (Tanner,
Moore, and Hartman 76). From that information given above, it does not give much of an
incentive to work for a living and leave the welfare system.
Medicaid was introduced to the welfare system in 1965 and is currently the largest
government program in the social assistance system. It provides medical and health-related
services to the nations poorest people (MaCurdy and Jones 6). Welfare recipients can abuse the
Medicaid program by making unnecessary, frequent and expensive visits to emergency rooms.
They are aware that the hospital bills are paid by welfare, so no matter how severe their illness is,
they go to the hospital (Effort to Curb Medicaid 1). As of 2013, the amount of people in
Pennsylvania on Medicaid is about 2.2 million (Giammarise 2). Welfare recipients receive free
healthcare because they are either unable to work or just choose not to. Welfare programs such as
Medicaid were meant to help for a short period of time, not to be taken advantage of long term
(Payne 10-11). Medicaid is only the beginning of the woes in the welfare system.
Another abused aspect of the welfare system is a highly priced program that is costly to
taxpayers, food stamps. According to LaDonna pavetti, an expert on welfare programs at the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, about 1.8 million people in Pennsylvania are on food
stamps. Most recent statistics stated that about 195,000 recipients receive cash benefits
(Giammarise 2). In 1995, overpayments resulted in nearly $2 billion in excess payments for food
stamps. The amount of money going towards food stamps enormously increases every year due
to recipients abusing the program. Welfare recipients abuse food stamps through trafficking,
which is when recipients sell their food stamps for cash to buy drugs or alcohol. Estimates were

made that 10% of benefits were trafficked (Payne 78). Trafficked cases are not always
announced to the public, but they do occur in the United States.
The truth behind the welfare recipients abusing the program may be unknown to most
taxpayers except cashiers. Cashiers are able to witness firsthand welfare recipients abusing their
food stamp cards on a daily basis (Sabatini, Menzies, and Evers 2). For instance, a cashier stated
that a welfare recipient had a remaining balance of $3,000 on her food stamp card. The woman
had four children with her and was expecting her fifth. Her food order was about $200 and all
that was purchased were unhealthy food. The woman was clearly able to work, but chose not to
(Sprankle 1). When recipients run out of money on their food stamp cards for the month, they
have to pay for food with cash. This cashier observed that recipients will put back food if they do
not have enough money for cigarettes. Recipients are able to receive cash back on their food
stamp card. As soon as they get the money back, they ask for cigarettes (1). It is not fair for the
working class to pay for peoples addictions. Welfare recipients may dress in name brand
clothing, have hair and nails professionally done, drive new cars, and have smart phones (1).
Welfare recipients can live a life of luxury at no cost. They are aware that the government takes
prodigious care of them; thus, they choose to remain dependent on food stamps.
Americans turn to welfare for several reasons. They include the ordinary Americans with
bad luck, middleclass people who have run into economic or personal disaster or companies that
went bankrupt. There are also welfare recipients who are veterans that scarred from fighting in
war, which prevents them from coping with reality. Then, there are those bring poverty upon
themselves. These include pregnant teenager girls who are not supported because they babys
father disregards his commitment to the baby and the financial burden (Kronwetter 75-76). The

welfare system acts as the provider for the single mothers that sets up the welfare system for
failure.
Douglas Besharor and Karen Gardiner state their statistics with teen moms being on
welfare. Teen mothers are now responsible for about 30 percent of all out-of-wedlock births, but
even this underestimates the impact of unwed teen parenthood on the nations illegitimacy
problems. Sixty percent of all out-of-wedlock births involve mothers who had their first babies
as teenagers (97). By continuing to allow this, women make pregnancy their job as a citizen.
They do it for the money, not the love that a child brings to a parent. Women, especially, are in
position to cheat the system by having children. Pregnant women, who are single, keep having
more kids with a different man each time so they can receive more money and benefits (Spalding
3). A story was told by authors, Wildarsky and Levine, who interviewed a single mother on
welfare. The woman had nine children from five different men. She was arrested for shoplifting
and spent time in jail. The welfare system provided her and her nine children with rent free
housing, food stamps, benefits, Medicaid, and tax-free grants for the minors currently living at
home (107). The story went on to say that she did not even want the ninth child, but had it
because she needed the money. She also vandalized the house that government provided for her
and complained that the welfare paycheck was not enough (107). Wildarksy and Levines
example shows that recipients do cheat the system.
A major issue affecting the welfare system is that there is too much ignorance and
misunderstanding in the purpose of the social programs. Agencies keep on making laws that
lower the standards to be enrolled in the system, which causes the welfare population to increase.
The system does not have many rules for the recipients; therefore, they cheat the system and
remain dependent on the working class to pay for them to live an easy life (May 171). Not only

are the welfare recipients being dishonest, but so are the agencies. Agencies are rewarded when
they receive higher caseloads as well as when dispensing more benefits. Some agencies will
overlook fraud in some cases, just to keep their recipient on the program (Payne 80). According
to the Pennsylvanias Office of Inspector General, welfare fraud is not considered a felony unless
the amount of fraudulent benefits is a minimum of $3,000 or more. It used to be that any welfare
recipient who committed any type of fraud could face up to seven years in prison, fines up to
$15,000, program disqualification, and mandatory restitution (Giammarise 3). The agencies are
just as guilty as the clients.
Welfare recipients also abuse the system by accepting the monthly welfare check instead
of seeking work. Studies have shown that 68.6% of welfare recipients report that they are not
actively seeking work because the welfare benefits are too high. As the benefits increase, women
are more likely to leave the work force and enroll in the welfare programs (Tanner, Moore, and
Hartman 77). Currently, nine states welfare pays more than the average starting income for a
secretary. The six most generous states pay their recipients more than the starting salary of a
computer programmer. In large cities, the welfare benefits are extremely high. In New York City,
welfare provides them the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 (76). More people are
relying on welfare because it is easy to do so. Excuses such as, There is no way I can get a job
in todays economy, must be eliminated (Olasky 7). There are plenty of jobs available, but
recipients just choose to not work for their money.
Another program that is being abused is Social Security. Social Security provides
monetary assistance to people with either inadequate or no income. Welfare recipients who are
currently enrolled with Social Security are able to get an extra $700 a month if deemed by the
Social Security Administration. Social Security made sense because it helped the physically

disabled, then the program got more lenient. Through the expanding of the program, they started
to give money to those who disabled themselves by alcohol or drug use (Olasky 6). The federal
disability system leaves its recipients permanently dependent on it. They do not help them
overcome their disability; they pay them for their suffering and uselessness. The welfare systems
are dehumanizing its recipients (6). The outcome is only to construct another welfare generation.
In Colorado, a man who was an alcoholic lived in a homeless shelter that took prodigious care of
him. Every month, his Social Security check would come in the mail, and then he wasted it on
alcohol (6). He brought upon himself a life of poverty through his alcohol addiction. Even when
given help from the government, he decided to continue his drinking habit. The government is
paying people for their bad habits. From doing so, recipients are taking advantage of this helping
hand.
Through the expansion of the welfare system, more psychologists argue that their patients
must be permitted to take part in the program. Depression can be as disabling as a bad physical
disorder; however welfare recipients are using their health problems to their advantage. In
Marvin Olaskys article, he stated that two parents overdosed their 4 year old daughter with a
drug that she had been taking for bipolar disorder. The parents were receiving an extra $2,800 for
the suffering from mood swings and demanded $700 more. That case where the parents took
advantage of the Social Security by abusing their daughter may be extreme, but it does happen.
As of December 2013, there were 1 million children on Social Security. As told in the story, if
the patient is already on welfare, then the doctors will enhance the benefits that they are already
receiving. The United States must reject cases like the one in Olaskys article.
Another abused aspect of the welfare system includes recipients choosing to fulfil their
wants instead of needs with their welfare income. A study was done by the Michigan Department

of Human Services to find out how many welfare recipients play the lottery. Results came in that
about 14% of all lottery winners in 2012 were receiving some type of public assistance. That is
about 3,544 people in the state of Michigan that were not disqualified from the program or
winnings (Giammarise 3). Playing the lottery is not a necessity, it is a luxury. There are
thousands of people in the working class that struggle to make ends meet. They do not even have
extra money to spend on gambling on the lottery. Welfare recipients do not have the right to
gamble money that technically is not rightfully theirs in the first place. They are abusing the
system through pure selfishness.
It is unfortunate that government officials who are well educated allow the welfare
system to run this way. State representatives, as well as government officials, must do all that
they can to help the problem, not enhance it. Instead of creating a system of dependency, they
need to reevaluate this system and endorse accountability (Smith 1). The programs are there to
help those who truly need it, not those who abuse it.
By abusing the welfare system, the recipients are not only hurting the society but also
themselves. They are not held accountable when receiving assistance. It is creating negative
impacts towards their self-worth and the reputation of their country. Recipients tend to lose the
mentality of being a responsible citizen, work habits and job skills. In Tommy G. Thompsons
article, he stated; You have to expect personal responsibility from the very beginning or you are
never going to succeed. The complete failure of the current welfare system can be traced to the
fact that the system gives money to people and doesnt ask for a single thing in return. Nothing.
Any system that is set up this way is bound to fail. And it has-miserably (187). Every person on
welfare ought to desire to become a better provider, not a moocher.

From the examples given, the worthwhile endeavor that the United States welfare system was
created for, did not truly help, but actually crippled the less fortunate overtime. The chaotic
meltdown led to enormous difficulties, attracted the undeserving, and kept older recipients on
these programs indefinitely. Poverty brought upon by unfortunate circumstances is quite
understandable in every country, but these occurrences must not give those who fall on hard
times a permanent license to sit back effortlessly and make this a setback a new way of life to be
passed down as a fundamental family tradition. People need to see that they can to rise above the
tragedies in lie. There is so much more to life than relying on the government. They would be
able to earn and achieve if they would seize the opportunities that come their way.

Works Cited
2014 Poverty Guidelines. Office of the Assitant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. 22 Jan. 2014 Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
Douglas, J. Besharov, and Karen N. Gardiner. Government Programs Do Not Help Teen
Mother Get Off Welfare. Welfare Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 96-102.
Print
Effort to Curb Medicaid ER Abuse is Prudent. Walla Walla Union-Bullentin (WA) 28 Sept.
2011: Newspaper Source. Web 14 Apr. 2016.
Giammarise, Kate. Pennsylvania Senate President Targets Welfare Fraud. Pittsburgh PostGazette. PG Publishing Co., 11 Jan. 2014. Web 13 Apr. 2016.
Kronenwetter, Michael. Welfare State America: Safety Net or Social Contract? New York:
Franklin Watts, 1993 Print
MaCurdy, Thomas, and Jeffery M. Jones. Welfare The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. L
Library of Economics and Liberty. 2008. Web 14 Apr. 2016.
May, Edgar. The Wasted Americans: Cost of our Welfare Dilemma. New York. New American
Library. 1964. Print.
Olasky,, Marvin. Beyond the Welfare State. World. World News Group. 21 Dec. 2013:2, 6-7.
Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Payne, James L. Overcoming Welfare. Expecting More from the Poor and from Ourselves. New
York: Basic, 1998. Print

Sabatini, Enrico, ken Menzies, and Fred Evers. Welfare Fraud: Cohabitation and the Need
Hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Criminology 34.2 (1992): 181. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 12
Apr. 2016.
Smith, Cindy. Welfare, SSI Systems are being abused by irresponsible parents. PennLive
Letters. The Patriot News. 22 Sept. 2013. Web 11 Apr. 2016.
Spalding, Matthew. Why the U.S. Has a Culture of Dependency. CNN. 21. Sept. 2012. Web
12 Apr. 2016.
Sprankle, Victoria. Personal Interview. 11 Apr. 2016.
Tanner, Michael, Stephen Moore, and David Hartman. The High Value of Welfare Benefits
Keeps the Poor on Welfare. Welfare Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven. 1997. 7582. Print.
They [Democrats] are the Quotation Collection. n.p. 8 Mar. 2007. Web 11 Apr. 2016.
Thompson, Tommy G. Welfare Reform Should Promote Personal Responsibilty. Welfare
Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1997, 186-89. Print.
Wildavsky, Rachel, and Daniel R. Levine. Welfare Is a Way of Life for Some Women. Welfare
Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1997. 106-13. Print.