Welfare Queens, holding babies in each arm and one on the back, with three hanging onto each leg. It's the portrait our far-right society paints for those on state benefits or welfare programs. Takers, they say. They sit around on their ass collecting my hard earned money so they can keep sitting on their ass. Lazy sons-a-bitches. Who the hell gave them the right? Damn Liberals and their whining. They just want stuff from the government, they're not willing to work for it. They're not motivated to get a job, they can just sit on their ass all day collecting the taxes from my hard earned money.
This is not a productive image for the conversation as a whole, but it's where conservative viewpoints begin. I like to think of it as the safety net, but living within proximity to a social worker's nightmare has given me a bit more perspective. I have seen some of these welfare queens of which the conservative masses speak. I also understand that this dependency comes from a culture born to generational poverty. This cesspool of crack dealers, prostitutes, welfare queens and alcoholic bums (as conservatives would have you believe it is) comes from a legacy of outright racism. The city is called East St. Louis, and it is nowhere near the shape it was in 60 years ago.
But how did it get so bad? People I speak with at work tell me it's "because the blacks moved in." I cringe, and can't help but look sad at the accepted explanation. So, I did some research. Though I use wiki-links, this research was done at both the Missouri History Museum and several libraries in St. Louis and Belleville regarding the social changes. I also studied the histories of the cities surrounding East St. Louis. It's quite interesting, but in the interest of time, I will summarize the knowledge gained.
After the Great Migration north (there's a link in East St. Louis note), the the race riots - where a mob of 3000 white men went around and randomly beat black men for fraternizing with white women - and the industrialization of East St. Louis with American Steel and Aluminum Ore, as well as the shipping yard expansion, East St. Louis became a booming city. What happened? Well, on the Missouri side, this was about the time that North City also began booming. The booming industrial jobs were creating a black and white middle class that could compete. Things were going well. Until the jobs moved out of town. A new Interstate highway system was being proposed and was running straight through East St. Louis to create a new Poplar Street Bridge. Because so much of East St. Louis was consumed by the new interstate, the people that could move out did. Of course, those people were the whites. Blacks didn't make a high enough wage to afford to move out. Some people stayed. They tried to keep going, but the jobs moved south, west and east - mainly because the Eads Bridge was no longer of any value for shipping, and East St. Louis and North St. Louis were both using it as their min artery in the shipping businesses. North St. Louis and East St. Louis dropped in population right about the same time. The industry and jobs moved west, several of the citizens couldn't. They got stuck working other jobs that didn't pay as much. Eventually, they couldn't care for their property, and things got bad. Property values dropped, jobs left, poverty rose, and crime began to seep into the system. Civil Rights passed, Welfare passed. Jobs were coming and going, but nothing like the old days. The people that left created their own communities, or built onto existing ones. Fairview Heights was created in the 1960's, just after the Interstate was built. It had a mall, and a huge up-welling of citizenry right about the same time East St. Louis dropped, same as many of the cities surrounding it, using it's Interstate exit/entrance as a source of life. It could be considered a diaspora of sorts... former communities of East St. Louis "sticking together" after the big split. What does this have to do with Welfare? The people that got 'left behind', so to speak.
Eventually, after decades of job loss in that city, generational poverty began taking hold, and people became dependent on government aid to get by. Why? Because of where they're born and to whom they were born. They took advantage of welfare to pay for the things the needed (sometimes alcohol or drugs) and lived in Sec. 8 housing while receiving food stamps. Everything was seen to for them. They're on Medicaid now, too, so you know that means they're clogging up the Emergency room for flu treatments. How do we stop this?
Remove the money from the system. Include resources. Give them resources. Pay for rent, utlities, medical bills, transportation through public systems, and food, but don't pay them cash. Increase the food stamp allotment, and expand food stamp purchases to include hot food, clothes, toiletries and other essentials of daily living (i.e. utilitarian items - broom, dustpan, mop, sponges, etc.). This way, all essential necessities of living are provided. The increase is paid for by the decrease in cash allowance. Take the $800 or so cash and spread it out between living expenses and healthcare costs. This resource based approach to government aid programs can help change the way our society works. Now, if someone wants cash, they either go sell some crack on the side of the road, or they get a job. Either way, it's not my cash they're using for their stuff. What this would need is to say that if someone took a job that earned 100% poverty income, the benefits would end. So, people could have a job and receive benefits, too. That way, the system is being supported through their own work, and the people sleep safe knowing that some lazy-son-of-a-bitch isn't using their money for drugs.
I can also suggest a work-for-cash-benefits program where people on welfare can have a chance to simply work for the money they once received. Those that become a part of the program would be merged with the city works unit and employed to clean litter, mow abandoned fields, care for neglected properties, or be added to the roster for some sort of city works labor unit, depending upon qualifications.
This is a simple change, but one I think will never get implemented. Why? Our economy thrives on money. Having money, spending money on something you shouldn't - it's a thrill. Our society has allowed us to believe that we need it - money, that is. By giving people cash benefits, we provide the market with stability, a ground floor from which to start. The beneficiaries can go see movies, buy a cellphone, pay for an iTunes account, whatever. They spend it. The advertising exposure increases, they stay where they are because they're comfortable, and the economy has a solid consumer for life. Throw in food stamps, and someone is making $1,000 or so dollars a month, which can buy whatever they want in both food and other items. It's a freedom of purchasing power, but it's also poverty. It's dependency, and with that dependency comes votes. Vote for the guy who gives you cash - that's how conservatives tell it. That's why it will never change. Both sides win - business and government - when people have cash and buy "stuff."
But here's what they don't show you.
The mother who raises multiple kids on her own, and has no time to work, or can't find work with a fitting schedule. She gets government aid, provides the kids a home base, and helps them onto their own feet so they can get out of the ghetto in which they might live. The kids go away to college, find a job and move on to bigger and better things. Why don't we ever see this picture coming from the right? Is it because they're so embroiled with the idea of racial stereotypes that they completely ignore the stories and just think of all black people they meet outside their paradigm as welfare dependents, or is it because they're so angry that the Liberals created it and are benefiting from it electorally? If it's such a horribly run program, why don't Republicans ever try to fix it, rather than just cut the funding to it? Wouldn't a Constitutionalistic approach to government include welfare, now that it's a law and all? Wouldn't one, instead of ending or cutting something, attempt to solve the issue at hand with common sense?
If we don't like the system, then we need to fix what we don't like about it. People I know complain about the cash benefits. End them, spread the funds throughout the remainder of applicable benefits, and expand those benefits. Cash, in order to fix the system, must come from the work of their own hands, and not from tax dollars. The Imagery of welfare must change in order to please the image based culture of the right.
No comments:
Post a Comment