Basic HTML Version
January
197 L
(AFDC). The number of fami lies
rece1vmg such aid íncreased more
between
1965
and
1968
than during the
previous
17
ycars combined. Now, more
than l.5 millíon fami lies, representing
over 6 million people, receive AFDC
aid. Their numbers increase about
15
percent annually. As the most extreme
example, New York City alone has
one
millio11
on welfare, the number having
doubled between
1965
and
1968!
This welfare crunch is causing prob–
lems. There are too many
mil/ion
people needing and requesting help,
without enough
billio11s
of dollars to go
around. That's the
immediate
problem.
The Jonger-range problem is an archaic
and unjust welfare
system,
amounting
to a "wclfare scandal."
President N íxon himself called the
present welfare system a "colossal fail–
ure," ao "antiquated, wheezing, over-
The
PLAIN TRUTH
loaded machine" that breaks up homes,
oftcn penalizes work and grows at a
prodigious rate of
1O
pe:rcent or more
annuaUy.
The greatest inequity, of course, is
that it
doem'l real/y help many of the
poor.
One New York City welfare offi–
cer admitted, "Welfare is designed to
save money, not people, and it ends up
doing neither." To illustrate - there
are over 25 million poor people in the
United States.
Less than half
receive
ANY
help. Those who do receive help
are neither helped
0111
of their problem
nor, in general, given enough to livc
decently
in
their poverty.
Nine Reasons Why Welfare
MUST Change
Much has been written about the
inequities of the present welfare system.
Nine problcms summarizc thc main rea-
5
sons why officials have dedared that the
current system
tniiJt
be revamped.
1)
Families are broken u
p.
To
receive AFDC relief, the father
t1111st be
absent
oc
disabled. In actual practice,
three fourths of al! welfare famil ies are
fatherless,
and only one fifth have a
father disabled. More than half the
nation's poor urban blacks now live in
fatherless families.
2)
I/legitimacy is "enco11raged"
by
granting more AFDC support for each
child born while the husbancl is
absent.
Welfare workers are paid to keep an
eagle eye out for the husband who lives
with his AFDC wife. Often she tries
clandestinely to support him in separate
living quarters.
3) IJV
ork is "discO!traged."
In many
arcas, a welfare recipient can receive
more
on relief than he could by work–
ing at sorne of the dirty and distasteful
jobs which pay only about S60
a
week.
"In such a case," sorne people reason,
"111hy tuork
?"
Presently about
100,000
people earn
more by workiog
part-lime
and collec–
ting welfare supplements than they
would earn by working full time.
4)
Work
is
sometimes prohibited
in
the case of blind, injured, disabled or
otherwise handicapped people. Maoy
are deprived of their welfarc check if
they work even part-time. Many jobs
can be done well by the hanclicapped if
welfare
policy
would encourage it.
5)
Trmzsportation, dothing and day
care
for children are sorne of the extra
expenses encountered when one begins
working.
To u·ork
sometimes costs more
money than
no/
to work. But such
expenses are not provided for welfare
recipients wishing to work, cspecially
AFDC mothers. For instance, a person
rc.:ceiving
$3,000
welfare annually might
easily "net" more money than if he
or shc
workecl
for $4,000 annually.
6)
W
ork and ll'flge discrimitzation
often causes AFOC mothers or unskilled
minority workers to earn much less for
hard physical work than a white-collar
workc.:r might earn for a less demanding
job.
7)
Regional ineqNities
cause a poor
family of four on AFDC to receive only
S36 a month ($9 per person) in Mis·
stsstppi, but $240 per month
($60
per
person) by moving to New York City,