posted on June 17, 2002 05:49:23 PM new
There is an article in today's Washington Post about a California county that pays its welfare clients to move to localities where jobs exist. I'll post a few paragrphs of the article written by William Booth.
Do you think this is a good idea or simply a way to skirt the issue of job creation? Afterall, the United States has a mobile society. Shouldn't everyone have a chance to move for better employment?
"VISALIA, Calif. -- David Langley is a working man without enough work to do. "I got 10 cents in my pocket," he said, in a voice blending sadness and shame.
Langley works part-time for an outfit called the Big Bounce, erecting those portable funhouse-trampolines for kiddie parties. He is 31 and lean as barbed wire, a new husband and father. He makes $7.50 an hour. His family just went on welfare.
"We're stuck," he said.
So Tulare County is paying the Langleys to move away.
In a unusual social experiment, the county government will rent Langley a U-Haul van and a trailer hitch to pull his car. It will give him cash for gas and motels, plus money for the first month's rent and deposits at his new rental unit in Colorado, where he plans on using his journeyman plumber's skills to make $15 or $20 or maybe even $25 an hour.
posted on June 17, 2002 06:19:00 PM new
I am thinking you could take this further.
How about sending them to Hawaii where they would probably never have the funds to fly home? Maybe even send them to a foreign country where they could be paid a hundred or two hundred dollars a month to live where you can survive on that instead of $2,000 a month here.
They would have their kids there and they would not be citizens saving the whole next generation.
If you sent them back to their ancesteral home it would delight all the haters of minority groups.
posted on June 17, 2002 06:22:36 PM new
At least someone's trying SOMETHING new. God knows the stagnation of the decrepit cities in the East, where you just p/u a check every week doesn't work.
posted on June 17, 2002 06:28:20 PM new
As long as it works as it is described in the article, the program sounds good. If it remains somewhat flexible and voluntary, I think that many people could benefit from it.
posted on June 17, 2002 06:28:41 PM new"How about sending them to Hawaii where they would probably never have the funds to fly home?"
gravid, since the 1960's and the Hippies and Hells' Angels bikers who all flew over to Hawaii in search of Nirvana, the vast majority of them ended up on welfare over there, as Hawaii has only a tourist industry over there and the local folks get the jobs long before any newcomers from the Mainland do. Hawaii quickly decided that paying for a one-way airfare to welfare recipients was easier than keeping the population in one place.
posted on June 17, 2002 10:13:06 PM new
If there is a "job" waiting there, why not send the husband first, and then send the rest of the family if he secures a job ?
If California did it this way, I wouldn't suspect they are just attempting to dump their welfare recipients.
posted on June 18, 2002 08:06:27 AM new
Dumping welfare recipients....Right!
One thousand dollars to move across the country and NO money to move back? It's not surprising that 85% of the people have not moved back. Add to that, the problem that if a job is lost, that some states might deny applicants welfare if they have been in the state only a few months, meaning they might show up on the rolls later". What do they do in the meantime?
Furthermore, there is no reliable followup so nobody needs to evaluate the success of the plan...just ship them out and count the money saved?
And just where can a family live on the wages of a shift manager working at MacDonalds with a wife working as a clerk in a gas station?
Good grief! I thought the story was a satire from the Onion news!
posted on June 18, 2002 09:52:19 AM new"What do they do in the meantime?"
Oh, the usual thing, Helen, when someone has to feed their kids and the job is lost and the state won't be of help. If they can't find any new job at all (which has happened often enough), then they have a choice of Chairty from a Church (which lasts for a days or two), or Armed Robbery, which last for 7-20 years, but makes it even harder on the family. If it's a woman, likely it'll be prostitution and have Republicans as customers. A man will likely get into crime, hurting and killing people at the worst. Once the man or woman is behand bars, the kids will get split up into the State's social services and liekly, the kids will never see their parent or parents ever again, causing life-long traumas that contributes to a life of crime and welfare.
posted on June 18, 2002 11:34:48 AM new
I think there is something lacking in their education. To lose children and come up with a absurd scheme like this is just unacceptable.
It may even be a news feature in Moscow just like the recent smoking ordinance in Montgomery County.
posted on June 18, 2002 11:50:46 AM new
Helen, one of my sisters works for CPS. Her office did a head count after the news in Florida. No children are unaccounted for in her jurisdiction.
I'm not so sure that California has a bad idea. The problems that you mention need to be addressed, but why shouldn't people be able to go where jobs are? Some industries in this country are never going to recover and the surrounding towns will only have low paying jobs. If someone needs a little help to move, why not put the money there. It sounds as if the recepients are researching their options.
posted on June 18, 2002 12:07:02 PM new
saabsister
I don't have a problem with a poor guy moving to an area to find a good job. But this plan has not been evaluated. As I said before, the focus in the article is ship them out and count how much money is saved.. Why, for example is there NO money for return in case the job does not work out? Why is there so much focus on how much money they will save by not having to help these poor people. Why is there no mention of vocational education. Working in MacDonalds is not the type of job that will help an impoverished fellow with a family. In fact, he would probably recieve more money on welfare.
Then there is the problem of falling through the cracks. If the job does not work out, there is a period of time depending on the state policy in which the poor people are without a job OR welfare benefits.
I believe that the money would be better spent on vocational education. Otherwise these people will be stuck in a menial job and poverty forever.
posted on June 18, 2002 12:36:47 PM new
Helen, I'd like to see more money spent on vocational education also. We'd be wise to spend more on long-term drug and alcohol treatment as well.
I suppose I feel that this program is a start. A McDonald's employee would probably fare better in a rural area in some other part of the country than in California.
posted on June 18, 2002 12:53:44 PM new
As you know, in this area near Washington, DC it takes a salary of at least 80,000 per year to take care of a family with rent, health care, utilities, education, transportation and all that I have forgotten. If California sends a poor fellow here to try to live on a menial wage then what they are doing is just transferring him from one welfare agency to another. I believe that they are aware of that fact.
posted on June 18, 2002 01:03:12 PM new
Helen, I would hope that a poor Californian would know that he/she was jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire if he/she chose DC after doing any research. Perhaps southern Virginia or western Maryland would be a better choice. The figure you quote is about the median household income for Fairfax County meaning that half the households get by (perhaps barely) on less than that amount.
posted on June 18, 2002 01:23:19 PM new
If the social workers are considering the cost of living factor, they will probably send the poor people to another area that can least afford to support them.
Poverty is the root of so many problems...crime, health problems and lack of education. Women can't work because child care is not affordable.
There is no excuse for the poverty in this country.
posted on June 18, 2002 02:37:29 PM new
It will eventually work out that the State will create a kind of indentured service. Aleady, there are many programs that have been implimented that mimic this approach, although full-blown indentured service is equated with slavery and is still illegal. For those who are down on their luck, there will always be that stupid and uneducated part of society that will see that taking advantage of human beings in their misery is the best solution, rather than try ways to help to to help themselves out of their situations. The first approach is the Republican way, the other is Jesus' way.
posted on June 18, 2002 04:35:07 PM new
Resisting the temptation to make comments about Grapes of Wrath: The Sequel, I think that as long as the program remains voluntary that it has the potential to help some welfare recipients. It isn't a panacea, but with the current and foreseeable economic climate, more innovative approaches to helping recipients become independent are critical.
One very important fact that comes from the article is that a large number of welfare recipients do want to work and are willing to assume some risks to have that opportunity. Too often the small number of frauds, cheats, and parasites are used to unfairly stereotype all welfare recipients.
posted on June 18, 2002 05:49:53 PM new
First off Bonilar the republicans dont use prostitutes that much. sort of professional courtesy.
its what make them so itchy lackanookie.
It was clinton who signed the poor off.
historically the lest several will go down in history as
pimples on Roosevelts ass.
poor people could be easily managed by rooming them at night in the used used space at most major law firms.
