Rethinking "Welfare"

Allow me to preface this by saying that I am entirely supportive of federal and state public assistance programs.  Unlike Newt Gingrich, I don’t think there’s anything particularly sordid about the phrase “food stamps.”  When I hear the phrase, I am saddened for the people who are less fortunate than I am and I am grateful for what I have.  I’m proud of the taxes I pay and I can only hope that some of that money goes to assisting those in need.

There’s no political ideology or organized religion that has ever existed that hasn’t maintained some sort of public assistance program for the benefit of the needy.  The concept of public welfare should not be a bipartisan issue—it should be an innately human issue.  To hear Gingrich scathingly call President Obama the “food stamp president” is almost grotesque.  He might as well call him the “public charity president.”  Newt argues that more people have gone on food stamps under this administration than any other—fair enough.  The U.S. population is larger under this administration than any other.  Does that mean that people are happier under Obama and are thus recreating more frequently?  No, not necessarily.  Correlation and causation are not one and the same.  

Now, for a welfare program to be effective, it has to be done properly.  Public welfare should be doled out to those who need it for the direct purpose of directly helping them afford food, clothing and shelter.  This past week there have been multiple reports coming out of multiple major news networks that government records show that people have been using their welfare money at strip clubs and casinos—and even at hotel gift shops in Hawaii!  Are you kidding me? 

“Mad” doesn’t even begin to describe my sentiment.  “Utterly floored” is closer.  People have been using welfare money to support low-life establishments such as strip clubs?  They’ve literally been gambling the money away at casinos?  And they’ve used the money—that they clearly don’t need—at hotel gift shops in the vacation island of Hawaii?  Really?  I’ve never even been to Hawaii and people who are (supposedly) “needy” are vacationing there?  Something has got to change.  Now.

Newt clearly isn’t the solution.  Maybe Romney is.  Maybe Obama is.  Whoever is going to step up to the plate has to do it quickly.  With our federal government hemorrhaging money, the last thing we need to be doing is subsidizing vacation souvenirs and lap-dances for the “needy” people who are supposed to be using our tax dollars to pay for their basic necessities (and the basic necessities of their children). 

When I was little, I was told that if you give a man a fish he will eat for a night, but if you teach him how to fish, he will eat for the rest of his life.  Our money should be going to pay for the tackle and bait of needy Americans, not for their tabs at strip clubs, casinos and resort gift shops.  I want the poor to get the help they need, but I won’t stand by and watch my hard-earned money taxed away and thrown at luxuries for people who can’t afford them and don’t need them.