I am not entirely sure how to formalize this idea into a policy format, but I believe introducing a requirement for certain welfare recipients to engage in volunteering—rather than donating money to approved charities or philanthropies—could have a transformative effect on our society.
For decades, the welfare system has faced significant challenges, including misuse by individuals who do not intend to contribute meaningfully to society. Simply donating money is an easy option, but encouraging or requiring direct volunteer participation could foster a stronger sense of community and personal responsibility, potentially shifting attitudes toward the country in a positive and lasting way.
A policy that mandates a certain level of volunteer service for specific categories of welfare beneficiaries could not only reduce dependency on the system but also provide a path to meaningful social engagement. I envision a technological solution to support this initiative, such as an app that tracks and verifies volunteer hours through the use of QR codes. Approved supervisors would generate QR codes once the service is completed in accordance with established guidelines, ensuring accountability and proper documentation.
In my own experience, I have observed individuals who, lacking ambition, continue to exploit the welfare system with minimal effort to improve their situation. Implementing a volunteer requirement could address this issue, fostering personal growth and reducing long-term reliance on welfare.
Ultimately, the goal of this proposal is to reduce the welfare state while simultaneously increasing morale and a sense of purpose among low-income recipients.
Thats a start of a really good idea. It would also provide job experience for them. I, too have seen the abuse that goes on with (life) dependent on the government. The welfare system was created as a boost in life not a life long income.
Yes, they do, but many of the current policies in various states focus solely on getting individuals off welfare, often without addressing the underlying issues. As a result, people are more likely to fall back into dependency on the system. My proposal, instead of just removing people from welfare, involves requiring them to engage in volunteer work, which has the potential to fundamentally shift their attitudes. This approach could inspire ambition and encourage them to become more active, contributing members of society. By fostering personal growth and responsibility, this strategy could have a more lasting impact, helping to keep individuals off welfare in the long term, unlike the existing policies.
I have long thought this would be a positive way to impact our communities and welfare recipients. If you have an out of work painter & an elderly person who needs their house painted, pair them up. The painter gets unemployment compensation from the state based on the hours it takes to paint the house. And the elderly person provides the paint and benefits from the help. The community benefits from the beautification of the citizens property, helps the painter feel sense of worth, and the elderly neighbor feels like the community cares.
And even beyond that, many cities have beautification projects, cleaning, and repairs that could be completed by citizens who have fallen on hard times. And if a welfare recipient knows they are expected to work for the pay they may be more motivated to find a job in the private sector. Or it may motivate them to become an entrepreneur and serve a business need in their community.
I think this model could work for any welfare recipient working with their specific needs, disabilities, and skills. No more free handouts, if your community is giving you help up, you need to reach out to help your community and it’s citizens.
The problem is that the current welfare system was developed during an era when there was only one “bread-winner”, the man of the house, and there was no “safety net” if he should lose his income. The welfare system was designed to be a bridge between the income loss and a source of new income. It was never inteneded to become a lifestyle, much less create a secondary society of “welfare moms”, like we have now. There were no governors introduced into the program because, at the time, none were really needed. People did not go “on the dole” because it was considered a lifestyle; it was a desperate alternative in an unfortunate situation. There needs to be limits on both the duration of public assistance as well as the number of children that can be claimed. If you can’t afford to feed yourself, then you have no business introducing progeny into this world; much less five or six or ten, from multiple fathers, no less.
Consider, for example, the substantial investments that major pharmaceutical companies make in lobbying and television advertising. By limiting or potentially banning these expenditures unless they contribute to the welfare system, we could redirect these funds to support initiatives like mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Drug abuse is a significant factor in many social challenges in America, and this measure could help identify welfare recipients struggling with substance abuse who may need support to re-enter the workforce and become productive members of society.
Additionally, it would be valuable to analyze the rates of criminal activity among welfare recipients. By implementing reforms that encourage self-sufficiency and address behavioral factors, as mentioned in my previous post, we could potentially expand the middle class, reduce crime and drug dependency, decrease reliance on welfare and government support, and achieve other positive outcomes. The welfare system, designed many years ago, has not evolved to address some of its unintended social impacts, and modernizing it could yield significant benefits for American society.