Welfare Limits

[Renegade]

A couple of years ago the BC government introduced the concept of a 2-year time limit for welfare. They are the only province to do so. Before implementing they added so many exemptions that the time limit was pretty much toothless. However it did introduce an important concept to welfare: the notion that welfare is a temporary support measure, and recepients should not take for granted indefinate benefits.

It also opens up the question on whether people have a right to welfare.

Welfare advocates have also tried to interpret Section 7 of the Charter which guarantees everyone the rights to life, liberty and security of the person as justification that welfare should be a right.

Minister defends welfare time limits

[err]

A couple of years ago the BC government introduced the concept of a 2-year time limit for welfare. They are the only province to do so. Before implementing they added so many exemptions that the time limit was pretty much toothless.

Isn't it a shame they added exemptions for elderly women whose husbands died leaving them no life insurance. Or how about the single mom with 4 kids whose husband died with no life insurance... or just left her with no support. The government should come down hard on these parasites, shouldn't they Renegade???

It also opens up the question on whether people have a right to welfare.

I know that you'd like to open the question of how we can avoid helping those who need it most, but fortunately, most Canadians have a heart, and are glad that we live in a society where we look after each other.

[Renegade]

I know that you'd like to open the question of how we can avoid helping those who need it most, but fortunately, most Canadians have a heart, and are glad that we live in a society where we look after each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So then you'd agree with me that welfare is akin to a charity?

[Toro]

Welfare advocates have also tried to interpret Section 7 of the Charter which guarantees everyone the rights to life, liberty and security of the person as  justification that welfare should be a right.

Hmm, welfare is a right but property is not.

I'm not sure 2 years is appropriate but there should be some limit, at least for continuous receipt of payment, with exceptions.

[Riverwind]

Isn't it a shame they added exemptions for elderly women whose husbands died leaving them no life insurance.  Or how about the single mom with 4 kids whose husband died with no life insurance... or just left her with no support.  The government should come down hard on these parasites, shouldn't they Renegade???

One of the biggest problems with welfare is it creates an incentive for someone to become a teenage single mom. I say that any teenager who gets pregant should automatically be denied welfare. If they are against abortion they can always give the kid up for adoption. The important point is we should not be telling emotionally troubled girls that its ok to have kids when you are a teenager because the gov't will pay for them.

Similar logic would apply to women you have kids when they are older and end up on welfare. If you are on welfare and you have more kids then you should lose your welfare benefits. People on welfare should only be helped if they can demostrate that they take some responsibility for themselves - there is absolutely no excuse for having more kids once you are already collecting welfare.

[BHS]

Isn't it a shame they added exemptions for elderly women whose husbands died leaving them no life insurance.  Or how about the single mom with 4 kids whose husband died with no life insurance... or just left her with no support.  The government should come down hard on these parasites, shouldn't they Renegade??? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, but lumping them together with people who are chronically unemployed due to a lack of social skills isn't right either. I notice that weed-smoking twenty-nothings convered in tatoos with a history of fist-fighting with co-workers didn't make your list.

I'm all for a two-tiered health care system, and I'm all for applying a similar logic here. Seperate cases into different classes. Elderly women who got shafted by cirmcumstance get welfare until they die, and nice greeting cards on their birthdays too. Single mothers get welfare until their children are old enough to babysit themselves. And tatooed layabouts who're on the cusp of making it big in accordian flavoured punk music get half a year to get their acts together.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

I notice that weed-smoking twenty-nothings convered in tatoos with a history of fist-fighting with co-workers didn't make your list.

I'm all for a two-tiered health care system, and I'm all for applying a similar logic here. Seperate cases into different classes. Elderly women who got shafted by cirmcumstance get welfare until they die, and nice greeting cards on their birthdays too. Single mothers get welfare until their children are old enough to babysit themselves. And tatooed layabouts who're on the cusp of making it big in accordian flavoured punk music get half a year to get their acts together.

As you and Sparhawk both note, the system is open for abuse. Except, although I play 'left-wing', I'd go even farther than you. I advocate 'work for welfare', with rare exceptions for the disabled (who can often work better and are more appreciative of opportunity that the 'fist-fighting freaks') and the elderly. For every ten 'single moms', one of them could run a daycare while the other nine worked. The one operating the daycare could get tax breaks from the gov't in return for subsidizing the rates of the other nine.

Many reforms could be made along these lines, and in my opinion, it would be for the betterment of everyone.

I work near Calgary's new 'Drop-out centre', and I can tell you that the gov't social services should change their name to "the Great Enablers", for they molly-coddle the addicts, the lazy and the criminals. You should see 'welfare in action'. Drinking or smoking crack from sun-up, then smashing their booze bottles on the street or in the local park (why should they put in an effort to recycle and get some money back? The gov't will issue another cheque!) I regularly have to clean up discarded clothing, personal items, stolen property, etc from the front of my business, and almost all of the discarded items are from well-meaning people who donate to the Salvation Army, etc, but these people don't see their 'gifts' being used as toilet paper by drunken, violent crack-heads on a daily basis as I do. Perhaps I have become a bit jaded, but it is the truth.

[SirSpanky]

I recently read a book "Down to this"; about a writer who starts getting down on life, so he went and spent a year in tent city in toronto. Most of the bum's cheques were pissed away the night they got them on booze and or crack. They made money for food by doing other things; read, the welfare money was to support their habits. These people are largely unemployable because of their maladjusted social habits, and their addictions. So what do you do with them? Take them off welfare so they can pillage and steal? Because they will.

I also have the pleasure of knowing a few other parasites. One being my former good friend. He works 3 monthes a year in a kitchen, making $15 and hour. He could work all year but chooses not to, because its too cold to wait for the bus in the morning. I don't think anyone would argue that you should take this clown off welfare.

So how do you distinguish between the two cases, without spending more money on case workers to investigate than you would save by trimming the fat?

[BHS]

Take them off welfare so they can pillage and steal? Because they will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry to quote out of context, but you've reminded me of an argument that I've seen before and that I'd like to comment on.

I have no doubt that you're right about this, but this seems to me more like giving in to blackmail than formulating an enlightened social policy. There are laws in place to deal with the criminal aspects of the homeless lifestyle. There are sentences that could be given, both in prison and mental treatment facilities. That our justice system and our political class chose instead to view homeless criminals as victims of circumstance isn't reason enough to buy their good behaviour with welfare handouts.

[SirSpanky]

Absolutely. That was one of the thoughts as I wrote it, but I like to keep my post size down so I let it go.

So what do you all think. Are these types (not necessarily just street people, but others on welfare) victims, or should they be held accountable?

I don't think anyone gets better without challange. I think we need to get tough for some years, and just cut marginal people like this off. Take the hit in the short term, for long term gains.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear SirSpanky,

I think we need to get tough for some years, and just cut marginal people like this off. Take the hit in the short term, for long term gains.

Absolutely, 'tough love' instead of 'free love' should be our 'social safety net' motto.

Most of the bum's cheques were pissed away the night they got them on booze and or crack.

Even the cops and social services workers have a name for this behaviour. They call them 'Millionaires for a day'.

BHS,

That our justice system and our political class chose instead to view homeless criminals as victims of circumstance isn't reason enough to buy their good behaviour with welfare handouts

Amen to that. I think our justice system needs a total overhaul, and most of 'the poor, victimized homeless' have done at least some time in jail. Why not start there, with a 'captive audience'? For starters, have jails contracted over to the military, where there is no nonsense allowed. No TV, swimming pools, pool tables or BBQs. No drugs supplied by prison guards. Just discipline and working for your daily bread. No work, no bread (that is how my life is, so why should criminals get 3 square meals a day, free cable, dental and other medical coverage, etc?). I am not talking about slave labour, mind you, like making wallets for export to the streets of Hong Kong, I mean the cooking, cleaning and maintaining themselves and the facility.

Why should the victim of a crime pay twice? First, they are victimized (by whatever crime was committed, be it theft, assault, etc), and second, the victim then pays for the criminal to lead a possibly even better lifestyle than even the victim may enjoy.

The fact is, there are many alternatives to the excuses given as to why people are are either on welfare or are homeless. There are lots of treatment and outreach programs, free job training or re-training, etc, and it really is a question of 'choice' as to what one will do after one wakes up in the morning.

[Guest eureka]

You surprise me. Fleabag. I would not have thought you one to have your opinions formed by the sights outside your office. Incidentally, I had the same situation for years right on the doorstep of my dpwntown office.

The homeless are the victims of circumstance; sometime of mental illness but not nearly so many in that category as some like to claim. There are many causes and most are societal not individual.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

You surprise me. Fleabag. I would not have thought you one to have your opinions formed by the sights outside your office.

Don't get me wrong, I am still quite far left in believing that a 'social safety net' should exist, whether it be addictions treatment or short-term financial assistance (though I'd think a different system other than handing out cash should be applied). However, I regulary see the worst underside of human existence, and have had TV and newspaper interviews about it.

sometime of mental illness but not nearly so many in that category as some like to claim.

I totally agree, but since I see (and claim) that it is only about 5-10% of the homeless population, I'd say lumping them together (as by treating the problem with an unsupervised drug program and then giving them cheques to make their life choices with) is inequitable for everyone, especially those with the legitimate illnesses.

The homeless are the victims of circumstance;

Again, I would say perhaps 5-10% truly had a run of bad luck, (no friends or family, losing jobs for 'legitimate' reasons, such as bankruptcies of companies, nepotism, etc) and the rest, I claim, are victims only of their own bad choices.

There are many causes and most are societal not individual.

Truly, if society were different, we might actually eliminate the need for 'the basics', food clothing and shelter, but I see these things already being offered by social services, and I see certain people shunning these gifts and society a whole because they prefer the lifestyle of the addict, and choose accordingly. (a lot of them call it 'partying')

If society is going to progress in the future, I believe we have a 'moral obligation' to offer them a ride. If they refuse the ride, though, what compulsion do I have not to leave them behind? The rest of us would never get anywhere. (besides, gas grass or ass used to be a nation-wide motto)

[Guest eureka]

You might be interested in this. It is a selection from something I read a few years back and made a record of on my computer. These facts are American and a little old, but I don't think our experience is that much different; I don't think thesituation has improved and I would think it has worsened considerbly in both countries.

"Writing in 1990, the American writer on social issues and educator, Jonathan Kozol (Why Children Fail) in an essay gave some information on homelessness. I am going only to post some of the facts in that essay.

Since 1980, 2 million traditional jobs in industry have been lost each year. Half of those laid off end up in work that pays a poverty level wage.

Since 1968, the number of children living in poverty has oncreased by 3 million while welfare benefits to families have declined by 35%

Shortage of low income housing due to the gentrification of major cities. 500,000 units of low income housing are lost every year to condominium conversion, arson & demolition.

Between 1978 and 1980, median rents climbed 30% for lowest income families, driving many of these onto the streets. Since 1980, rents have risen even faster.

8 million Americans now use half or more of their income to pay rent or mortgage. Federal support for low income housing has dropped from $30 billion (1980) to $7.5 billion (1988).

Under Ford and Carter, 500,000 subsidized private housing units were constructed. By Reagan's second term, the number had dropped to 25,000.

With the exception of alcohol and drug abuse, the most frequent illnesses of the homeless were: Trauma -31%; upper-respiratory disorders 28%: limb disorders 19%: mental illness 16%: skin diseases 15%: hypertension 14%: and neurological illnes 12%.

Note that deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the US occurred in the 1970's.

Does this strike a chord in Canada today. All the same factors. All the same excuses. We just went into our swing to the brutality of the "market" and the neo cons a few years later.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

These facts are American and a little old, but I don't think our experience is that much different; I don't think thesituation has improved and I would think it has worsened considerbly in both countries.

I have to agree, they are relevant arguments, but the population increase taints some of those numbers. I agree, though, that society hasn't progressed much, at least not enough that we take a different approach to viewing others in society.

Note that deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the US occurred in the 1970's.

I knew that decision would eventually be the source of all our problems. (j/k)

With the exception of alcohol and drug abuse, the most frequent illnesses of the homeless were: Trauma -31%; upper-respiratory disorders 28%: limb disorders 19%: mental illness 16%: skin diseases 15%: hypertension 14%: and neurological illnes 12%.

In Canada, almost 100% of these things are treatable for free. Trauma??? One either heals or dies. However, I hear it said that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy claims in the USA are due to exhorbitant medical bills.

[Argus]

It also opens up the question on whether people have a right to welfare.

I would say not, but I would say society has an obligation to provide the basics of life. How society chooses to provide those basics, and what obligations it imposes are another matter.

I don't think it's neccesarily a question of who is legitimately on welfare a to what society should do with the individuals involved. It's all well and good to have sympathy for a mother of four abandoned by hubby. But does that sympathy extend to the eighteen year old on welfare who decides to "have a kid" because it'll be both something to play with and increase her welfare payments? And while some people are almost unemployable I think society can get some work out of them if they truly desire it.

Handing out cheques really doesn't do it for me. Single mothers should be provided with assistance to care for their child and encouraged to work. The uneducated should be educated, those lacking skills taught skills. Addicts should be forced into treatment. And in the end, those who lack motivation to acquire skills or kick their habit, or who are for whatever reason simply unemployable can find that motivation and employment in government work centres where food and clothing is given only for assigned work being completed. You might not be able to work a computer, but you can at least pick up garbage and pull weeds and scrub walls and floors.

[Renegade]

I would say society has an obligation to provide the basics of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, not that I'm disagreeing, but why do you think so?

[BHS]

I would say society has an obligation to provide the basics of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, not that I'm disagreeing, but why do you think so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just going to jump in here briefly to say that I agree with the sentiment expressed as a moral argument in favour of welfare. I think it behoves a just society to see that the down and out are taken care of. I am reticent, however, about codifying unlimited welfare for all who apply for it. There's a line there somewhere, between acting to achieve a moral goal on the one hand and being played for sucker on the other.

[Renegade]

I'm just going to jump in here briefly to say that I agree with the sentiment expressed as a moral argument in favour of welfare. I think it behoves a just society to see that the down and out are taken care of. I am reticent, however, about codifying unlimited welfare for all who apply for it. There's a line there somewhere, between acting to achieve a moral goal on the one hand and being played for sucker on the other.

BHS, (and maybe Argus),

That's a pretty slippery slope to go down. You are advocating having the govenment draw moral line. Government has frequently proved that where it is incapable of defining a morality which doesn't trangress someone elses vision of what is moral.

I am for paying baisc subsistance welfare, but not for moral reasons. In fact, I advocate that the government stay out of moral determinations completely. I am for subsistance welfare payments because they serve a practical purpose. They give those who qualify a stake in the system. If they didn't have a stake, and they had nothing to lose, they are more apt to resort to violence and crime. This would then lead to increased policing and security costs. So by actually paying out on welfare we may be saving ourselves money in the long run. I know you consider this blackmail, but I just consider it human nature. Now mind you I have no evidence to prove this economic argument, and it is conjecture on my part.

[BHS]

Renegade:

I tried formulating a quick response to your last post, but I find I'll have to think about it more than I have.

For now, let me note that I agree that a government that concentrates on the moral over the practical isn't doing it's job. A government's first responsibility is to provide services and legal frameworks for the common good, meaning for society as a whole. If the government instead spends it's time and energy (and our collective wealth) tending to the needs of specific demographics it is no longer performing the function for which it was intended.

However, trying to eliminate the moral element from government is a fools errand. Criminal law is largely based on morality, and trying to elminate social programs that stem from a sense of "needing to do something" about society's problems (in a wealthy country) is fighting an uphill battle against human nature.

If I can get my head better wrapped around the issue I'll post more later.

[Renegade]

Criminal law is largely based on morality

BHS,

Something to think about. I don't agree that criminal law is based upon morality. Each of us by mutual agreement has individual rights (right to security of person, freedom of religion, etc). Criminal law is a result of making sure we don't infringe on each other's rights. There is no moral determination involved. There are a host of behaviours which are currently defined as criminal which do not infringe on anyones rights. (eg prostitution, smoking pot, sucide). The justification that these should be criminal offenses is currently a contested issue. Many of these laws are residual from a more patriarchal society when the government felt its purpose was to decide what was moral right and what was morally wrong.

There are many acts which most if not everyone would consider immoral, however are not criminal or even illegal. (For example, cheating on a spouse)

When the government has tried to define morality as "right", it has usually landed in trouble. (Witness the SSM muddle the government ended up in, because it coded in law what it thought was the morally correct definition of marriage.)

The idea of government dictating to me what is morally right and wrong, is repugnant, and IMO the government should not be the one to make that designation.

[BHS]

Criminal law is largely based on morality

BHS,

Something to think about. I don't agree that criminal law is based upon morality. Each of us by mutual agreement has individual rights (right to security of person, freedom of religion, etc). Criminal law is a result of making sure we don't infringe on each other's rights. There is no moral determination involved. There are a host of behaviours which are currently defined as criminal which do not infringe on anyones rights. (eg prostitution, smoking pot, sucide). The justification that these should be criminal offenses is currently a contested issue. Many of these laws are residual from a more patriarchal society when the government felt its purpose was to decide what was moral right and what was morally wrong.

There are many acts which most if not everyone would consider immoral, however are not criminal or even illegal. (For example, cheating on a spouse)

When the government has tried to define morality as "right", it has usually landed in trouble. (Witness the SSM muddle the government ended up in, because it coded in law what it thought was the morally correct definition of marriage.)

The idea of government dictating to me what is morally right and wrong, is repugnant, and IMO the government should not be the one to make that designation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've chosen to ignore a host of other activities that are also criminal due to moral standards: polygamy, bigamy, beastiality, "statutory" rape and child pornography (with "willing" "underage" participants), assorted forms of public indecency and lewd conduct, etc. (It's interesting how these are almost entirely sexual in nature. Hmmm...)

A lot of the actvities that are illegal for moral reasons do not trample on another individuals rights directly, but have negative consequences for those in the vicinity of the act. The negative impact has been deemed to outweigh any benefit that the individual might derive from the activity, and hence the legal prohibition.

In a sense, the prohibition of immoral activities deemed criminal is like the "Broken Windows" policy used to cut down on crime in New York and other American cities. Enforcing a minimum standard of conduct by making certain activities off-limits increases civility on one hand, and removes the "casus belli " so to speak for more serious crimes committed as a result of the negative consequences of the immoral activity.

[Renegade]

You've chosen to ignore a host of other activities that are also criminal due to moral standards: polygamy, bigamy, beastiality, "statutory" rape and child pornography (with "willing" "underage" participants), assorted forms of public indecency and lewd conduct, etc. (It's interesting how these are almost entirely sexual in nature. Hmmm...)

No, I'm not ignoring them. Polygamy and bigamy, when held between consenting adults should not be a criminal offence. As I've said these are laws which are a throwback to a previous time. How can I or you, let alone the government decide that these are immoral.

beastiality, "statutory" rape and child pornography (with "willing" "underage" participants), is not between consenting adults and does infringe on indivdual rights. Why?, because we deem minors not to have the decision-making capability to give informed consent.

A lot of the actvities that are illegal for moral reasons do not trample on another individuals rights directly, but have negative consequences for those in the vicinity of the act. The negative impact has been deemed to outweigh any benefit that the individual might derive from the activity, and hence the legal prohibition.

Like what? As I said I'm not disagreeing that these laws exist. I'm opinioning that they shouldn't if their only reason for being is to legislate moral behaviour.

Do you remember the case of Gwen Jacobs? She paraded around topless and then challenged the law that convicted her. Yet again where the goverenment has tried to legislate morality they have failed. Oddly enough the ruling did not result in hordes of women prancing naked in the streets of Ontario. The government did not need to legislate morality. People's own sense of public nudity was enough.

In a sense, the prohibition of immoral activities deemed criminal is like the "Broken Windows" policy used to cut down on crime in New York and other American cities. Enforcing a minimum standard of conduct by making certain activities off-limits increases civility on one hand, and removes the "casus belli " so to speak for more serious crimes committed as a result of the negative consequences of the immoral activity.

The "Broken Windows" policy was a deliberate attempt to prosecute minor crimes, with the tactic that it would discourage major crime. It really doesn't apply to the situation we are discussing. Honestly, I don't think that legislating morality works. Either to deter major crime nor to prevent the moral transgression to begin with. Witness how long prostitution has been with society, regardless of laws, or attempted enforcement.

[BHS]

No, I'm not ignoring them. Polygamy and bigamy, when held between consenting adults should not be a criminal offence. As I've said these are laws which are a throwback to a previous time. How can I or you, let alone the government decide that these are immoral.

If you and I aren't allowed to make moral decisions for ourselves, as you've suggested, then what is morality? Is there an absolute standard of morality out there somewhere that I've missed?

beastiality, "statutory" rape and child pornography (with "willing" "underage" participants), is not between consenting adults and does infringe on indivdual rights. Why?, because we deem minors not to have the decision-making capability to give informed consent.

Animals do not have rights. That's why we eat them with impunity. So what's the difference if you choose to fornicate with a sheep rather than roast it on a spit? This is strictly a moral issue.

You're "we deem minors..." sounds an awful lot like a morally based decision as well. When does a minor become an adult? Why that particular age, when some may mature more slowly (or quickly, as the case may be)? It's all a lot more arbitrary than "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose".

Do you remember the case of Gwen Jacobs? She paraded around topless and then challenged the law that convicted her. Yet again where the goverenment has tried to legislate morality they have failed. Oddly enough the ruling did not result in hordes of women prancing naked in the streets of Ontario. The government did not need to legislate morality.  People's own sense of public nudity was enough.

I'm not sure that this makes your point. The activities we're discussing are made illegal because they're immoral, not immoral because they're illegal. If society is ready for a sea change in morality in a particular instance, it follows that the law should change as well. If we all wake up tomorrow and decide that doing your dog on the front lawn is perfectly acceptable behaviour, then I agree the law should change to reflect the new reality.

The "Broken Windows" policy was a deliberate attempt to prosecute minor crimes, with the tactic that it would discourage major crime. It really doesn't apply to the situation we are discussing.

It is precisely the situation that we are discussing, as I elaborated after the simile.

Honestly, I don't think that legislating morality works. Either to deter major crime nor to prevent the moral transgression to begin with.  Witness how long prostitution has been with society, regardless of laws, or attempted enforcement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, back to Broken Windows. Prostitution, a "victimless crime", is directly related to numerous crimes that are committed in conjunction. Pimps regularly kidnap young girls (even underage (14!) girls) and force them to turn tricks, and assualt them for failing to deliver a satisfactory income. Fraud and theft are regular features of the act of prostitution, not to mention the deliberate infection of unwary johns by prostitutes who are aware of their infections but choose to spread them anyway. I'm deliberately ignoring the drug aspect out of respect for your arguments, though it can be added that pimps use drug addiction as another tool for controlling their charges.

Prositiution has been with us since the dawn of civilization, and will likely be with us for as long as we have sex. But deciding to take a laissez-faire attitude towards it only enables the criminal element that feeds off of it. The same is true about a host of crimes of a moral nature - condoning them in turn creates a climate in which other crimes become more likely.

[Guest eureka]

Criminal Law is actually based in the main on the protection of property and property rights. On the things that the sheep following the demagogues are persuaded are not protected in Canada.