Put Welfare Recipients on Highway Cleanup Detail!

Published on June 3, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

OK, this one's gonna draw flames from the left. But you know what? I don't care!

I still believe the food stamp program needs to be eliminated, but as Bakerstreet correctly pointed out, the elimination can't be done overnight. It needs to be done over time.

And so, I feel, for the short term at least, that food stamp and other public aid recipients need to put on orange jumpsuits and put on highway cleanup detail. If they're too disabled to do that, they can show up and shred or collate papers at the welfare office (even VERY low functioning developmentally disabled adults can do this; it would be hard to argue their way out of it).

Is that demeaning or robbing them of their dignity? Hell no! You see, as someone who has RECEIVED aid, I would gladly have done anything for the aid, which was NEEDED at the time. Simply giving me a handout and implicitly stating that I was too worthless to have anything to contribute BACK to the system that helped me was demeaning. I would GLADLY have donned a jumpsuit and picked up trash on the roadside!

But I would have tried to get on to something better as soon as I could. Sure, I did that anyway, but my point is, a lot more people would be motivated to self improvement if they were assigned tasks they felt to be "beneath them" to receive aid. And the mooches? Well, they'd hit the highway pretty quick...and I DON'T mean in an orange jumpsuit.

The idea of something for nothing is killing us as a nation. It is robbing us of our national dignity, our self worth, and the work ethic that drove our ancestors here in search of a better life. We have somehow gotten the idea that the poorest among us deserve a "milk and honey" lifestyle, while ignoring the fact that the poorest among us live better than about 95% of the world's population.

Capitalism is based on the idea that there is something better, something that can be attained through hard work and perseverance. If we simply GIVE those luxuries to the poor, their value is lost. They should be gained through work and dedication. Then there will always be a value to them.

Comments

latour999

on Jun 03, 2005

why the orange jumpsuits? That seems a little prison-esque.

But seriously, I think we are is agreement here somewhat in principle kind of. The government can do so much more. People work on highway cleanup, making roads, environmental work, etc., get paid, spend their money, economy grows, we get clean highways, everybody wins! Thank you, John Maynard Keynes!

However cases where children are involved should be handled compassionately, as the parents need to be able to take care of their children, and it isn't right for children to be punished because their parents happen to be poor.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 03, 2005

The only reason for orange is its visibility to drivers...and the relative safety for those on cleanup detail. Maybe road construction crew vests would be better, I don't know.

As for the kids, I don't think they should get a guaranteed check just because they have kids. While I don't agree with CPS, the fact remains that, if a parent is unwilling to do what needs to be done to provide their children with food, well, then, they're really not being responsible parents, are they? As a parent I can tell you, I will do anything I have to to support my children, as long as it isn't illegal, immoral or unethical (and even there, my standards differ from most...I DID apply for a security job at a brotherl once, after all!)

Death_By_Beebles

on Jun 03, 2005

The problem with recepients is that you could have no-shows. To combat this, I would suggest a check hand-out after so many hours of work on the highways.

It is a great idea, but, for you Gideon, that is normal fare.

Maybe I could write you in for governor of Ohio...

our current one is... sub-par.

Peace,

Beebes

latour999

on Jun 03, 2005

The only reason for orange is its visibility to drivers...and the relative safety for those on cleanup detail. Maybe road construction crew vests would be better, I don't know.

That would probably be better cause it has the reflective tape on it

I just don't think it can be good for society to have a single parent forced to spend too much time away from home. Perhaps it would be better for them and for society to have them work only 4 hour shifts during school hours.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 03, 2005

I won't quibble over the length of shifts. I don't even think they should be required to put in 40 hour weeks for the detail (after all, they DO need time to look for a job, right?). All I am saying is that they should have a certain amount of time on this as mandatory detail in order to receive their benefits.

And, beebles, the answer to no shows is simple: No work, no check! It'll sort out REAL quick!

kingbee

on Jun 04, 2005

for a time la county was (and may still be) putting welfare recpients to work in county animal shelters, maintaining parks and other public grounds, etc. (convicted non-felons are generally made to do public service work with caltrans on the highways).

great plan--even tho it puts public works employees who actually know what they're doing at a real disadvantage careerwise. after all, why pay a real salary to one person when you can replace him or her with four or five people who are getting all of $300 a month plus $80 in foodstamps. sure the welfare people may not actually care about doing the job right and they can't find real paying jobs with the county because they aren't qualified...but maybe if you do it thoroughly enuff the former public works guys will wind up on welfare too and that way everyone wins.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 04, 2005

The Reagan adiministration looked into this at one time. They heard about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'welfare program and sent representatives to "Welfare Square" in Salt Lake City to see if they could pick up any ideas. As you know those of us who receive help from the LDS Church welfare system are expected to work it off doing some kind of service to the congregation or community. We can also choose to pay it back, if our financial situation improves.

What the report basically said was, while the LDS Church had a great, orderly system, it could never be implemented as a national system since it is beneath Americans' dignity to be forced to work for welfare money they receive.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 04, 2005

What the report basically said was, while the LDS Church had a great, orderly system, it could never be implemented as a national system since it is beneath Americans' dignity to be forced to work for welfare money they receive.

That's why I think privatization is ultimately the best route. Frankly, I gag at the idea of being GIVEN a "free ride" when what I really want to do is work to make ends meet. I would rather unload trucks at the Salvation Army to feed and clothe my family than to show up at a welfare office and get a check for nothing.

But that's just me, I guess!

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 04, 2005

It's also why I oppose wage and hour laws. In a "perfect world", if I were hungry, I could show up at the supermarket and stock shelves, cleanup their parking lot, whatever, for a week's worth of groceries. But the wage and hour cops would be on that in a hurry!

Dr Guy

on Jun 06, 2005

That is very sad, and unfortunately all too true.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!