There is an interesting debate playing out in the California legislature this spring, a debate that will have long-term effects depending on how it is settled. The issue we are referring to is the current fight over whether or not the Golden State's 'welfare queen' law should be put out to pasture. A number of prominent California Democrats think it's time.
The law, originally passed by Democrats and signed into law more than 20 years ago, places a limit on the amount of benefits a welfare recipient can receive. For example, if a family or single mother adds another child while on welfare, no extra financial compensation is paid to help support that child. The idea is to prevent families from having more children in order to increase their benefits. Makes sense, right?
State Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) doesn't think so. She called the law a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition. I think she knows the law prevents her and her colleagues from using the welfare system to purchase more votes.
Unlimited Benefits Create Incentive
Let's play a game, shall we? If I agreed to pay all of your bills, would you continue to get up and go to work every day? Most of you would not. The reason we work is that we have bills. It's as simple as that. Few of us would deal with the hassles of 9 to 5 if we were not compelled to do so financially. The welfare recipient is no different.
Allowing families to arbitrarily increase their welfare benefits by having additional children creates the incentive to perpetuate the cycle of poverty by bearing more children into it. On the other hand, encouraging welfare recipients to get out of poverty by working does two things: it teaches them a work ethic they can pass on to subsequent children and reduces the need to take money from taxpayers to support those who do not work.
The problem with legislators like Holly Mitchell is that politics takes precedent over people. Rather than actually help people overcome poverty, she and others like her want to perpetuate the cycle by giving people what they need to remain in it. This helps no one. In fact, it condemns the poor to generational poverty with no real end in sight.
Limited Benefits Create Incentive
If it is true that unlimited benefits create an incentive to not work, and it is, the opposite is also true. Limiting the benefits welfare recipients can receive creates the incentive to go out and work. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question: what mother in her right mind would allow a child to starve to death simply because a welfare check was not big enough?
There may be some sick and twisted people who are exceptions to the rule, but the vast majority of parents will do whatever it takes to feed their children. Ultimately, this then leads to the topic of job creation.
Those who argue we need a more robust welfare system do so on the basis that there are not enough jobs to employ the poor. Fair enough. Nevertheless, the answer to the jobs problem is not to create a larger welfare system. It is to figure out why we have a jobs problem and begin addressing it. Wipe out unemployment and you will wipe out poverty.
Get Government out of the Way
The real unemployment rate, when you account for the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' U-3 and U-6 unemployed, is more than 23%. This rate takes into account not only those who are receiving unemployment benefits, but those who are no longer receiving benefits and gave up looking for work a long time ago i.e., welfare recipients.
If you want to lower the real unemployment rate, it's easy: get government out of the way. Remove excessive taxation and regulation that prevents new businesses from starting and existing businesses from expanding. This is good for everyone. It allows those on welfare to start their own companies or go to work for existing companies that now have the money and freedom to grow.
Look at the historical data and you will see a correlation between job growth and a reduction in welfare benefits. Likewise, you will see a direct correlation between lower unemployment and real government efforts to reduce taxes and regulation.
We do not need to repeal the states' various welfare queen laws. What we need is to rein in government so that private economic activity can prosper. That's how you eliminate welfare.
Comments