We need to re-evaluate or welfare system. Today the number of people on Welfare has been cut in half from where it was in 1996. I give credit to both parties for this. The Republicans for writing and moving the bill through both houses of Congress and... are you ready, Bill Clinton for signing the bill into law.

As we move forward into this new century I think the time has come to look at the welfare programs again and change them to really help people. The Great Sociaety of LBJ just has not done the job. Why?

Too many people on welfare can not move off of it because they are strapped financially to it. Don't blow a gasket, this isn't a bash on the poor, it is a bash on the programs ran by the government that, though intended with nothing but the best have created more problems than they have solved.

Let's look at information from the U.S. Census, a good non-partisan (Partisan: A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea; to clear up Akman's point in another article. While I did spell it wrong, I knew what I meant) source.

Slide1I had to convert from PowerPoint to JPEG so it's a little fuzzy, my appologies, but it begins in 1960 and ends in 2000 showing almost identical starting and ending percentages, about 2%. You can see that throughout the 70's, 80's and early 90's the system helped a huge number of people. That's the way some people will see this and that's fine. I don't agree but that's another story. I see it as being horribly mismanaged during that time, you might have guessed, but that's really not the point of this article. 

The point is, we need to change the way we assist those who need assistance. Follow along...

Susan has been on welfare for four years let's say, a classic teen preganacy, she dropped out of school to raise her child. If Susan is working and needing assitance the government (we) pays her a small amount because she is hungry to work, but still needs help to make ends meet. Susan works hard and goes to school at night and gets her GED and becomes eligible for a better paying job, we dock her the additional money out of her Welfare assistance. So if Susan (and that's a just a name I gave her, she reflects no actual person) is getting $500.00 from the government and making $1200.00 per month on her own, she is getting $1700.00 per month to live on. Can we all agree that this is about right, give or take the exact numbers? It's not rocket science, just give me this one as an approximation of our Susan's situation. Good, let's move on.

If Susan get's promoted to an Asst. Mgr. position at her job and gets a $200.00 per month raise the government now sees that she needs less help from them and deducts $200.00 from her assistance. Susan has worked hard, got the promotion and is now up to $1400.00 per month from her job and her assistance has been cut to $300.00 per month from the government which means she is now up to $1700.00 per month, right?  How in the hell does this help Susan? This has been a futile effort for Susan and her kids.

Now in a another year she makes Manager and she gets a raise of $300.00 or even $500.00 per month. Her boss really likes her and she does a great job. The government now says she makes to much and can't qualify for anymore assistance. She's still only making $1700.00-$1900.00 per month.

(At this point I should say I have no idea where this cut offline is on assistance but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near what it takes to have a good life)

The government has invested $27600.00 to help Susan along the way. Money she will never have to pay back and that's fine. It is what the program is set up to, help not hurt. But is has hurt her. Susan has busted her butt to get this far. One incident, her child gets sick, her car breaks down or her parents or a sibling gets sick and has to move in with her (because our Susan is that kind of person, she can't help but offer help to others, a real good person) and she is back to square one and needing more help.

This is the system or at least an approximation of the system we have today. It is all well intentioned but if you look at the numbers of people accessing it, it hasn't really done a thing to wipe out the need for the system, let alone move people up, thus ending povery or at the very least, shrinking it in a major way since it's inseption 40 plus years ago. And we have spent over $6,000,000,000,000.00 ($6 trillion if I did that wrong) on this idea in those 40 plus years. It's not necessarily the fault of those using the system that they don't get out, sometimes it's the system itself that hinders them. (Just to stay true to my roots, sometimes it is laziness and a lack of drive that does it, but we are talking about Susan, not those other kinds of people)

So here's my idea. And I am seriously wanting to get an idea of what you think about it.

We have already invested $27600.00 and she isn't even close to being able to have a good life yet. She could fall back into our care at any moment and the cost to taxpayers will continue to rise.  Let's take Susan through my plan...

A classic teen mother at 17, Susan has a choice to drop out of school and go to work or go on the Average American Self Assistance Plan. (AASAP) Under this plan she must stay in school and get her diploma. Upon getting her diploma she must enter into either college (Community College would be fine) or a trade school of her choice. Now there are a stimpulation or two on this, no basket weaving courses or arts stuff unless it is industrial design or another of hundreds where she can gain viable employment upon completion of the course. We are not offering this to increase her cultural awareness or her appreciation for the arts, we are trying to give her the skills needed to take care of herself and her child in the years to come. Those are things she can gain on her own whenever she wants at her own expense should she decide to later in life.

Now nearly any course can be completed in 36 months, many in only 12-24 months, Nursing, Front Office Management, Computer repair or Programming and the list goes on, and upon completion you can go out with confidence and find a good job, of course we will assist in that too. Remember, we are not trying to get her a PHD or Masters, just a good solid foundation to grow from and to provide for her throughout the rest of her life.

Here's the kicker, we (and I do mean we since we are the government and it is our tax dollars providing all this) pay for everything she needs during that time. Day Care, health coverage, Housing, transportation and yes, her education. This is a four year commitment to this young lady to get her the skills she need to make a good life for herself and her child or children. I figure it would run us about $24000.00 per year since we would be buying everything at bulk rates, even the classroom credits. If we put a cap on the time frame of 36 months plus the time she needs to get her high school diploma, we are looking for a total investment in her of $36,000.00 to $80,000.00, could be less if we really designed it right. And if we teach her money management along with this program we could give her the ability to build a nestegg while she is getting her education. Understand, none of that money outside of a little spending money (all kids need a Christmas and birthday, they all need to go to the movie once in a while with mom and mom needs to show the child that she is providing for him or her, that's just one of those social chacteristics we need as humans) will go to her. She doesn't need cigarettes and beer, she needs food, shelter, and time to go to school. Even her child support from the father can suppliment the program until she finishes it, then she gets that monthly income too. And he will pay, that has to be manditory.

I know you are thinking, holy s***, AA has lost his mind, that's more than we spend on Susan now...

But think about this, our Susan will be able to take care of herself financially. She will be making a good income let's say $30,000.00 to $45,000.00 per year depending on what her new education was in. She will be a tax payer, helping fund the program for others. She will understand the importance of what she has because of the sacrifice she had to make to receive it. And she will be able to look her child in the eye and say I did this, I can take care of you now. That can be a powerful force and motivator.

Best part of the AASAP is that Susan will now be a productive member of society and if something bad should befall her, she will probably have the ability to overcome it on her own because she will have a nestegg to fall back on. She won't be returning to the trough.

Hopefully she will gain the understanding of importance of a solid education and pass that down to her children thus breaking the cycle of poverty and reducing the need for the program. While it will never be gone completely, I think it would actually do more good than the current programs and would reduce its own cost as time went by as less people would be trapped in a generational loop of being poor and uneducated.

Well, that's my idea. I know the initial costs seem high, but when compared to 40 plus years of a revolving cycle, I think it just might work and be cheaper and better for all involved in the long run.

But what would I know, I'm just an Average American.