I have always supported welfare payments all my life. And like many liberals and Democrats, I was outraged when Bill Clinton basically ended all welfare payments in 1996 at the federal level, bowing to Republican pressure. But some of the arguments around that time were valid. That some people might just choose not to work, deliberately do that IOW. I was surprised to find during the COVID scare that is what happened. Some people were given a temporary excuse not to work due to COVID, and then just refused to go back. I didn't know that was actually something that could happen up till then. Bill Clinton also introduced things like a strict requirement to work or you lose your benefits, all of them. I remember back in my 8th grade crash course on the Constitution, that has something to do with the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment outlaws not just slavery but involuntary servitude too, unless as a punishment for a crime. Those are two very different things. Slavery is when you treat someone as your property and exploit them. Involuntary servitude is when you force someone by law to work. In Abraham Lincoln's time states often did that for people in debt. And that is very wrong if the person honestly can't pay back the debt. Thru no fault of their own IOW. But you can't compel work for any other reason either. The military draft is one exception, along with a couple of other things (like mandatory labor on public roads and jury duty all accepted in Lincoln's time too, according to a 1916 case I just read). Maybe we should change that, the idea of involuntary servitude that is. I have always supported welfare payments like I said, because the alternative is people starving and becoming homeless. But if they refuse to work and it's deliberate, maybe they should face legal consequences. First a fine and then maybe a brief stay in a jail cell for contempt, like they do during trials for uncooperative witnesses. Like I said, it sounds more compassionate then denying them food or shelter. We would have to change the 13th amendment, and that would open a whole new political can of worms. Like changing the first amendment to outlaw flag burning. But this is different, and maybe we could some day. When things change politically in Washington.
I think universal basic income would solve the problem because the complexity of deciding who needs help and who should work likely consumes more resources then the problem itself.
My thought is, fraud is everywhere, always a certain percentage. Cost of doing business. If 90% of welfare is getting to those that truly need it, that's a success. We can't very well have a work requirement without childcare and a big system to oversee workers and manage cases...all of which nobody wants to pay for. People don't choose to be poor. People don't enjoy being poor. Nobody has another baby just to get $17/more per month. Mothers do not plan to be single. Kids do not enjoy hunger. Yes, there are people that game the system - that is on them and their conscience.
It's like Medicaid / Obama care. Nobody wants to qualify for them. It is super shitty coverage and only the cash mill docs accept it. Nobody doesn't work just to get Medicaid.
