The Buck Stops Here: Not a Handout, a Hand Up
Sharon Nakken
Kaplan University
CM220: College Composition ll

Thousands of welfare investigators across the nation report that only about 2% - 3% of welfare cases involve fraud (Barron, 2012). That is such a small percentage. Could fraud on that small scale really be significant? After closer examination, the significance becomes much clearer. If 2% - 3% of welfare cases are fraudulent, that means between 785,000 to 1.2 million families are receiving welfare illegally (Barron, 2012). That ends up costing taxpayers between 9.0 – 13.5 billion dollars each year (Barron, 2012). That small percentage turns into a very large number of dollars spent annually on welfare recipients who should not be receiving these benefits (Barron, 2012).
The welfare system in America today is once again in need of reform. Conditions such as mandatory drug testing, entry into an educational program, and strict time limits need to be placed on individuals who wish to receive welfare.
In 2007 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation reported that 20% of families receiving welfare claimed to have used illegal drugs at least once in the last year, while 5% said they had an ongoing drug habit (Vitter, 2011).
Some who oppose the random drug testing requirement say that it does nothing more than single out the poor and underprivileged. Deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Vanita Gupta claims “Mandatory drug testing of those receiving public benefits is just plain wrong. It demonizes and demoralizes those Americans most in need of help, and it perpetuates the dangerous, baseless notion that low-income people and communities are somehow less deserving of the constitutional protections and basic human dignity to which we are all entitled. We should not support ineffective, unconstitutional, and costly government programs that intrude into the lives of Americans and target the most vulnerable among us during the worst economic period in decades.” (Gupta 2011).
But there is another side to this coin. That is that random drug testing is to truly help those people affected by addiction, giving addicts the motivation to seek help, allowing families once broken by drug addiction to heal.
There is also the obligation to the taxpayers that must be considered. Wasting a taxpayer’s money by allowing it to be spent on illegal drugs is wrong and creates a feeling of resentment toward welfare programs and those who are benefiting from these programs. Truly needy families should be getting that money. Every welfare dollar spent on drugs takes a dollar away from a family in need (Vitter, 2011). Placing these conditions on people who receive welfare will eliminate money allotted for this program being spent on illegal drugs.
According to LaDonna Pavetti, during her testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, “about 70% of families receiving assistance at a given point and time have already received assistance for at least 24 months and 48% have received assistance for more than 60 months.” (Pavetti, 1996). Of course these families receive assistance for long periods of time. Why wouldn’t they? During the time these families are receiving welfare, what has changed for them? Unfortunately the answer to that question is usually nothing. Pavetti states that the number one reason for a family to remain dependent on welfare is lack of recent work experience and educational attainment (Pavetti, 1996).
A welfare reform that limited recipients to four years while at the same time requiring these recipients to attend either college or a training program would prepare them for a career. Part of the benefits of this new reform would be money allotted for tuition and child care. At the end of four years, you will have well educated people who are capable of contributing to society instead of being a drain on it. These families would be able to stand on their own without government assistance. The children they are raising would learn that hard work is the only way to obtain the American dream. As it is now, these children only see hopeless parents who are stuck in a system that does little to help them achieve self-sufficiency. If there is to be any hope for these families to live, not just exist, they need to see that there is an end in sight. . Imagine the sense of accomplishment someone would get from being on welfare to becoming an educated, full-time working parent who provides for their family. Isn’t one of the purposes of welfare to help those who have fallen on hard times? Isn’t welfare supposed to offer people a hand up? As Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich writes in his essay "Renewing America," "The welfare system has sapped the spirit of the poor and made it harder to climb the first rungs of the economic ladder." (Gingrich, 1995). Of course such change will not be easy. There will be some who do not want these changes; who don’t want to better themselves or their families, and some who would just rather not work. These are the individuals who are misusing the system. These are the people who need to be exposed and denied these benefits.
In 1996 congress attempted to implement welfare reform by doing away with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC); which gave low income mothers direct cash subsidies to help with their day to day living expenses in an effort to encourage them to attend college, receive a degree, and hopefully become a self-sufficient, tax paying contributor to society. Critics of AFDC argued against it due to the unlimited time frame for receiving cash aid and believed it discouraged single mothers from entering the workforce.
A new and reformed program was born. The new program, named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), aimed to correct that error. There were some great benefits to this new program. The cost of the welfare entitlement program was cut in half, and the number of women using this program was also cut in half (Wilson, 2011). Unfortunately this program came with a significant downside as well. Because the monetary support for low-income mothers seeking higher education was all but eliminated, critics of this program feared that these women would be unable to pursue a higher education, leaving these women stuck in a low paying job, and therefore never allowing them to rise out of poverty (Wilson, 2011). Sadly, it appears that the critics were right.
It seems undeniable that another reform on welfare is needed. According to the US Census Bureau, in the 2010 American Community Survey, 3.3 million households received some type of public assistance in the previous twelve months. That is an increase of 0.3 million from 2009. As stated in an article by Roanen Barron, our government spends more than it takes in. 2001 was actually the last year our government even came close to living within its means. Since then, we’ve added more debt to our nation than all the previous years of our history combined. “We are expecting to pay about half as much for Welfare as we do for Defense, Healthcare and Pension programs. We are also expecting to pay about half as much as the total for Welfare for interest on our national debt (which will top $16 Trillion dollars in 2012) and other expenses like research along with government grants and loans. We’ll spend about a third on Education as we will for Welfare; and, less than a quarter of that total for Transportation costs like road and bridge improvements.” (Barron, 2012).
Robert Rector states in an article that in the year 2011 we spent over $900 billion on different welfare programs in the US. He is not speaking about Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance. The programs he is referring to include cash aid, food stamps, medical, and HUD (housing aid) (Rector, 2011). In an interview with Dianne Quaranta, a caseworker, she says, “One thing that a lot of people don’t realize is that we are not only spending money on these programs, but the people in the programs usually aren’t paying taxes. That means they are taking from the system, but are unable to put anything back into it. If this continues, there is no way we, as a nation, can continue to be a power nation.” (D. Quaranta, personal communication, March 25, 2013). If welfare is used as it was designed for, it can be a wonderful thing. In an interview with Heather Berg, a woman who used welfare as it was designed to be used, she agrees that single mothers who find themselves with little or no options to better their future need help to rise above their circumstances. Miss Berg utilized the welfare programs that were offered. She received cash aid, medical, food stamps, help with her college tuition, and money for child care. She received these benefits for four years, all the while attending college. After those four years, she graduated college and is now a high school teacher (H. Berg, personal communication, March 2, 2013). The idea of welfare is a wonderful one, but it must not be abused. With these ideas implemented and single mothers using the system as it was designed to be used, just as Miss Berg used it, how can it be a bad thing?

Animoto Presentation
For the visual presentation, a short Animoto slide show set to music while displaying images and text sets the backdrop for the idea of welfare reform. The beginning of the slide show illustrates a feeling of sadness, hopelessness and a sense of being stuck in the welfare system. As the slides progress, it shows a figurative path out of this system. There is a feeling of progression and hope. The song that accompanies the slide show, “Never Give UP” is the perfect backdrop for this “road of progression.” The presentation is roughly 30 seconds long. Its purpose is to show that with welfare reform designed to give a hand up, everyone can have a better future.
This is a link to the slide show: http://animoto.com/play/k350dYp01BlOGKKmkvM1ZQ
Included is a short description of each slide with citations. Complete citations are listed on the reference page.
Slide 1: "Mother holding sick," [image] (Mother holding sick toddler girl, n.d.)
Slide 2: Sohm, [image] (Highway exit sign for welfare, 1988)
Slide 3: "Department of family," [image] (Department of family and children services, n.d.)
Slide 4: "Denied food stamps," [image] (Denied food stamps, n.d.)
Slide 5: "Welfare," [image] (Welfare, n.d.)
Slide 6: "U.S. spending on," [web graphic] U.S. spending on federal welfare now exceeds $1 trillion, n.d.)
Slide 7: "College just ahead," [image] (College just ahead, n.d.)
Slide 8: Fluken, [image] (College textbooks students classroom, 2011)
Slide 9: "Woman graduating from," [image] (Woman graduating from college, n.d.)
Slide 10: "Dream job next," [image] (Dream job next exit, n.d. )
Slide 11: Godbehear, (Happy smiling child arms raised in joy, n.d.)
Slide 12: “From welfare to success, show your children that you can succeed. (Text, no citation required.

Formal Letter to the Editor
Dear Mr. Capelli, I am afraid I most certainly disagree with you. Participation in welfare is absolutely voluntary. It is a choice one makes to fill out the paper work, turn it in to a caseworker, wait for a check to arrive in the mail, cash said check, and spend the money. You state in your article, “The U.S. has always been distinctive in the priority that we give to individuals' rights and the associated limits that we place on the ability of government to intrude into private lives.” If this is the position you take, then why does the government have the right to limit items one can purchase with one’s food stamps? An individual is prohibited from purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, even toilet paper with food stamps. Is that not an intrusion into their private lives? Mr. Capelli, can you tell me why the suggestion that someone who elects to receive a welfare check, therefore in my opinion, being an employee of the government, should not be subjected to the same rules as anyone else? If I apply for a job where a drug test is a requirement for working at that company, either I submit to the drug test, or I do not get that job. Why is no one protesting on my behalf? My point is this; welfare should not be one sided. Those who want to receive must be willing to give. What they are being asked to give is consent to a drug test. This is a simple request, and unless one has something to hide, I cannot see why this should be so harshly protested. Let us forget for a moment about discontinuing government assistance to those who test positive simply because they do not deserve to receive benefits if some or all of their money ultimately provided to them by the taxpayer would be spent on drugs. There is something else very important to remember. These people need help. The drug-testing bill in Kansas focused more on the rehabilitation of drug addicts and less on the potential cost (Whitaker, 2012). Republican State Senate Vice President Jeff King said, “If folks test positive, we need to help them get help and help them get the job skills they need to kick the habit to get a job and keep a job.” (King,n.d.). After all Mr. Capelli, helping those in need is the right thing to do.
Thank you for your time,
Sharon D. Nakken

Reflection
I have rewired my thinking process, which ultimately results in rewiring my way of writing as well. What I mean by that is before I enrolled in this class, I considered myself to be a quite a logical thinker and overall thoughtful person. I was wrong. I have since learned that just because I think something is wrong, there are many people who feel just as strongly that it is right. As the weeks went by, and I participated in the discussions, I was shown that the people who may not agree with me have ideas that are just as valid as mine are. I came to that realization by learning to listen and to put my emotions in check while doing so. That is a very valuable skill to have. I also realize that just because I can understand an opposite point of view that does not mean I do not feel just as strongly about my own point of view. I can still have my opinion while understanding someone else’s. That is very enlightening. This new, more open and enlightened way of thinking will help tremendously with the relationships I have in my life. How very opinionated and arrogant I must have seemed at times.
The process of writing was much harder and more time consuming than I ever thought it would be. The preparation that goes into the final paper is extremely detailed. It’s as if it is always a work in progress, constantly evolving. With that being said, it is even more rewarding. The research, outlining, citations, paraphrasing, quoting, revising, revising again, and then finally it’s finished. That gives me such a sense of accomplishment. I absolutely loved doing this entire project from beginning to end. Don’t get me wrong, there were many times I wanted to pull my hair out. There were also times I knew I was not going to be able to do it. But then, somehow, it all came together and I was very proud of what I had done. I am sure to an accomplished writer, my essay will not be anything to get excited about, but to me, it is very exciting.
Without the feedback and constructive criticism, I received from my classmates this assignment would not have been half of what it is now. They say two heads are better than one, but I say a whole classroom full of heads is much better than one. I am so thankful for the ideas that my professor and my fellow classmates gave me. This learning experience has truly been a blessing for me.

References
Barron, R. (2012). How much is welfare fraud costing us? its our america. 12. Retrieved from http:// http://www.roanen.com/1/post/2012/04/how-much-is-welfare-fraud-costing-us.html
Bureau, U. C. (2011, October). Public assistance receipt in the past 12 months for households: 2009 and 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-13.pdf:
College just ahead (n.d.). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.may21.edublogs.org/2012/01/18/whats-next-college-jan-18
Denied food stamps (n.d.). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.technorati.com/women/article/denied-food-stamps-hopeless-mother-shoots
Department of family and children services (n.d.). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.the blue dolphins.blogspot.com
Dream job next exit (n.d.). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.engagedleadership.com/blog/how-to-make-a-living-doing-what-you-love
Dunlap, J., Feldstein, D., Franks, R., Nickoley, S., & Pasutti, M. (composers). (2001). Never give up. [Recorded by Beverly Staunton]. On Here's to you. [cd]. Canada: Staunton Music
Fluken, E. (Photographer). (2011). College textbooks students classroom [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.blackenterprise.com/money/7-ways-to-save-on-college-textbooks-and-supplies/attatchment/college-textbooks-students-classroom
Gingrich, N. (1995). "Renewing america." Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/welfare.html
Godbehear, M. (Photographer). (n.d.). Happy smiling child arms raised in joy [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.123rf.com/photo_2583967_happy-smiling-child-arms-raised-in-joy.html
Gupta, V. (2011). Mandatory drug testing demonizes and demoralizes. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs/mandatory-drug-testing-demonizes-and-demoralizes
King, J. (n.d.). More states consider welfare drug testing bills. Retrieved from http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/07/more-states-consider-welfare-drug-testing-bills/
Mother holding sick toddler girl (n.d.). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.babyzone.com/kids/kids-health-and-safety/flue-prevention-tips_87241
Rector, R. (2011). Welfare programs should support self-sufficiency. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs/welfare-programs-should-promote-self-sufficiency
Sohm, J. (Photographer). (1988). Highway exit sign for welfare [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/JS003248/highway-exit-sign-for-welfare
U.S. spending on federal welfare now exceeds $1 trillion (2012). [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-now-largest-federal-budget-item_654849.html
Vitter, D. (2011). Government programs should not encourage lifelong dependency. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-welfare-recipients-be-tested-for-drugs/government-programs-should-not-encourage-lifelong-dependency
Welfare (n.d.). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.katc.com/news/new-lawmaker-purposes-welfare-drug-testing-mandate/
Whitaker, M. (2012). More states consider welfare drug testing bills. Retrieved from http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/07/more-states-consider-welfare-drug-testing-bills/
Wilson, K. (2011). If not welfare then what?: how single mothers finance college post-welfare reform. 51-52. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=70e07579-d98b-4bda-bd40-78b9dfc73f9d%40sessionmgr15&hid=3
Woman graduating from college (n.d.). [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.studentgrants.org/grants-for-mothers