Entitlement policies were established to help various needy populations in this country such as: physically and mentally disabled, impoverished families, veterans, and immigrants. Most would agree our country needs policies intact to contribute to the well-being of those in need. However, a wave of dissolutionment regarding entitlement policies is swelling throughout our nation. In various ways, people are expressing hositility towards recipients taking advantage of entitlement policies. One worker shares his story:
Urine Test
I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay check, I work on a rig site for a Fort Mac construction project. I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their ___ drinking beer and smoking dope while I work..Could you imagine how much money the states would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque?
Where is the balance for entitlement policies? If we agree we need to have such policies, how can these policies remain free from a hostile public? Perhaps more effort needs to be put in public awareness of entitlement expenditures and pride in our country's value of helping others. On the other hand, perhaps we need tighter limits for those who are capable of working. Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would have to say the word 'entitlement" means different things to different people. My best friend's sister-in-law flat out refuses to marry her live-in boyfriend (although they have kids together) and get a job because if she does, the welfare checks will stop coming in. But in her mind, she is 'entitled' to the welfare assistance because she can't pay to take care of her kids. On the other hand, CEO's of major companies believe they are 'entitled' to huge bonuses and private jets and enormous homes because they say they have 'earned' it by working their whole lives to get to where they are and other people are just lazy. So I would say any entitlement policies need to start with a clear-cut definition of who is entitled to what and then stick to that with no exceptions.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment Jamie! Differing definitions tend to make policy saturated. However, the corporate executives are private and government assistance is public so as policy makers, technically we should only get to regulate one area with social policies. Unfortunately, the corportate executives are turning private industry into government controlled entities overnight with bailout mania! Where will the policies end?
ReplyDeleteI wonder why this story hasn't made headline news...oh...wait...If people say that there should be additional limitations or qualifications then the public and media will eat them alive saying "who are they to determine who should recieve benefits, this is for the poor and needy". At the same time I completely agree with this individual. If drug tests are required to give money to the government, why should there not be to take money from the government. Not only would this satisfy the working government employee and taxpayer but it would also give an additional incentive for individuals to stay off or get off drugs. I love the idea.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that there should be a clear definition. Everything is up to interpretation and without clear and consise guidelines anything and everything is entitlement.
I'm torn. At first I must say I was very entertained by this idea, until I really started thinking about possible implications. Having worked with many disabled individuals receiving "welfare" benefits, I worry. I worked with multiple individuals who were struggling with PTSD from rapes/sexual assault. Having to do a UA, would totally push these individuals over the edge (especially if it was in a situation where someone had to observe the UA). I've worked with many others who are struggling with depression or anxiety, that likewise would greatly struggle with such a requirement. Many of these individual have worked and paid into the system, but currently are not able to do so. Should we be kicking them while they are already down? The truth is, the majority of those on welfare are not there taking advantage of the system. They are there because, at present, they have not other choice. So why do we hear so much about welfare mothers and individuals taking advantage of the system- because that news sales. I don't know...I just worry.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we are overlooking the fact that there are other ways to do a drug test, that are much less invasive/anxiety provoking. What about a hair strand? Although I do want to be conscious of not penalizing people who are already down. It seems to be giving the message - because you are on welfare you are a drug user. But I also recognize that drug tests are not that unusual nowadays, and I would imagine it has become quite the common experience. Additionally if we consider welfare like a paycheck then it seems quite viable. Other people have to do drug tests to get their jobs, which provide a paycheck.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky one indeed. I for one have no problem requiring it, but for those for whom it is not an issue rarely do.
ReplyDelete