Haplo raises a point which leads to how populist knee jerk "get tough" on welfare ideas can soon run into self defeating problems.
Cameron in Britain has this workfare thing, it basicly means big business can get free labour instead of employing workers, people who do voluntary or charity work find themselves classed as employed and will lose their benefits unless they give up the charity work and instead become an unpaid shelf stacker at Walmart.
It is a good example of measures managing to target the people it is not aimed at and missing the people it is aimed at. With a "bonus" result of actually reducing the availability of jobs the lazy could be introduced to
Quote:
|
What I *AM* suggesting is that we do everything we can in service of assuring that the recipients of the state's largesse are both the truly needy AND as equipped as possible to get out of the system. I don't mind the price tag - I would think we can agree that the goal is to help people help themselves.
|
I know, but the usual result is that it hits the needy not the lazy and runs up an ever increasing price tag for ever diminishing returns.
A repeating problem which comes up all the time is that introducing more stringent criteria tends to hit genuine claimants of welfare harder as the welfare fiddlers know how to work round the system.
There must be a workable solution out there somewhere, but what it is I havn't a clue.
However what I do know is that repeating the latest incarnation of the already failed "get tough" measures is pretty much guaranteed to fail.