A temporary and effective safety net to help struggling Americans during hard times undoubtedly makes sense. But government welfare was never intended to be a career opportunity.
Still, certain politicians continue to push the “war on poverty,” endorsing the expansion of government programs that were originally intended to provide a temporary hand-up.
Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX) is one of those politicians. During a speech on the House for this Wednesday, Jackson said we should change the rhetoric surrounding welfare and that “a safety net has to be something for all of us.” She said, “Maybe the word ‘welfare’ should be changed to something of, ‘a transitional living fund.’ For that is what it is — for people to be able to live.”
Jackson Lee was referring to all welfare, including food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid, and Medicare.
She continued, “Quite frankly, of all the wealthy nations, we have the lowest safety net and the highest poverty, because we’re not willing to accept the fact that sometimes an American needs help. Even a veteran — even a soldier. So today, I honor the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, Mr. Speaker, and I ask us not to give up the fight because the American people are looking to us to win the war.”
Give me a break.
Government welfare has become completely out-of-hand — nearly half of Americans now depend on checks from the fed. Welfare is well intended, but it can make poor people comfortable remaining in poverty and often discourages work. When a recipient starts making too much income, they lose most government benefits. The incentive to find a job is gone.
Instead of expanding government dependency and welfare, politicians like Jackson Lee would do a better service to the unemployed by allowing the private sector to flourish. Getting rid of red tape and invasive laws lets businesses expand and hire more employees.