Current Events > 'work requirement' = 'spend more money to cover fewer people'

(+) Yeah! (+)

so-called requirements to work are really an excuse to kick people off of public assistance programs, even people who are meeting the work requirements but might not report their work activities or exemptions correctly.

the public really doesn't like it when you say that you want to cut SNAP or Medicaid spending, especially when you tell them who that will hurt.

but if you frame your argument as taking assistance away from people who could work but refuse to, the public is okay with it. especially because you aren't actually cutting spending in the program, as you need to spend much more on administrative bureaucracy than you do without work requirements

this has been a PSA
---

Or, it's just as meaningless as the "did you make two job contacts this week?" checkbox on the unemployment form.

Well said
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Or, it's just as meaningless as the "did you make two job contacts this week?" checkbox on the unemployment form.

false, job search and job search assistance are typically limited to contributing a maximum of 1/2 of your total hours each month

I don't want to tip my hand here too much but I actually am intending on suing our state government over this issue, as they did not promulgate these rules well and I believe they did not write this into their waiver request even though it is in their internal policy manual
---

I was forced into a situation in which I was practically an indentured servant for the state when I was 18 by work requirements.

I think they really only exist to make the "moral" argument.
---

I agree
---

COVxy posted...

I think they really only exist to make the "moral" argument.

Yeah, or more precisely, they exist because they are a way of pitting two different moral sentiments against each other, giving politicians cover to cut the amount of money which goes to poor people.
---

Good take, TC. It increases the amount of bullshit paperwork and bullshit jobs associated with that paperwork
---

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/get-people-work-tighten-welfare-standards

If the bureaucracy makes it not worth the effort, Im in favor of just slashing welfare in general, preferably to zero (over time).
---

It's attempting to solve a supposed problem from the wrong direction. Welfare, as is, punishes people for working, via welfare cliffs.

http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/the-welfare-cliff-and-why-many-low-income-workers-will-never-overcome-poverty/

When earning more means taking home less, the disincentive to work is obvious.

tennisdude818 posted...

If the bureaucracy makes it not worth the effort, Im in favor of just slashing welfare in general, preferably to zero (over time).

Yes, that is exactly my point. The 'requirement to work' satisfies a desire to kick people off the program, without the people voting for it having to admit that is the goal. Thank you.
---

Balrog0 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If the bureaucracy makes it not worth the effort, Im in favor of just slashing welfare in general, preferably to zero (over time).

Yes, that is exactly my point. The 'requirement to work' satisfies a desire to kick people off the program, without the people voting for it having to admit that is the goal. Thank you.

Unfortunately, the only effective way to counter the "lack of compassion" argument is to go straight for righteous indignation.

Balrog0 posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If the bureaucracy makes it not worth the effort, Im in favor of just slashing welfare in general, preferably to zero (over time).

Yes, that is exactly my point. The 'requirement to work' satisfies a desire to kick people off the program, without the people voting for it having to admit that is the goal. Thank you.

Im more than happy to say that welfare is theft and should be abolished. I think a lot of rank and file conservatives feel differently. But yeah, they clearly think that too many people use it.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Its always bad when an article about welfare does nothing to acknowledge what welfare prevents.

Eh, I don't care about that too much personally tbh. It's fine to focus on the welfare cliff without mentioning what welfare is intended to do. The bigger issue to me is that these kind of op-eds is that they blatantly highball their welfare figures by taking some theoretical maximum amount of welfare a person could possibly receive, even for programs that are both time-limited and resource-limited (as they note, less than 1/4 of TANF recipients receive housing assistance as well, because that is first come, first serve. And that less than 1/4 isn't all receiving the maximum subsidy they posit they could)

But that is how these things work.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Im more than happy to say that welfare is theft and should be abolished. I think a lot of rank and file conservatives feel differently. But yeah, they clearly think that too many people use it.

You are not a politician, and neither are rank and file conservatives.

Yes, they do think too many people use it, but not just people who aren't working or exempted. They want to kick those people off too, just like you do, but that isn't the argument they put forth.
---

tag
---