Democrats object to work requirements for certain persons who benefit from public assistance, but really, what’s wrong with the idea? I’d argue that it’s unfair to us taxpayers not to impose such requirements. If people want government assistance for things they didn’t pay in to, fairness and equity require that they get up off their couches and do something to pay back the taxpayers for our largesse.
The Democratic position, which is largely centered in the Congress, is that “acquiescing to GOP demands to drastically cut and alter social programs in exchange for raising the debt limit (i.e., paying the country’s debts) would be a betrayal of many voters who helped elect Biden in the first place.”
And in fact, opposition to work requirements seems to be solidifying in the House Democratic caucus. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Minority Leader, recently stated that “work requirements are a nonstarter.”
Since Republicans counter that, without work requirements, they will not vote to lift the debt limit, it would seem that the two parties are at an impasse. This is despite the fact that President Biden himself has issued ambiguous, and at times contradictory, remarks concerning his willingness to negotiate work requirements with Kevin McCarthy, who insists that work requirements are “a red line” for Republicans.
I still identify as a Democrat (although it’s getting harder to do so), but in this case, Dems are dead wrong. In fact, I would bet that a majority of Americans believe, rightly, that if you’re getting financial benefits from the government—food stamps and other forms of assistance—you should contribute something in return. Republicans suggest 20 hours a week of service of some kind, although they exempt certain people with children, or who are not able-bodied.
I see nothing wrong with this. I don’t know about you, but I resent giving taxpayer dollars to people who have done nothing to earn it, or have not pre-paid in to those programs whose benefits they receive. These programs are not similar to pay-in programs, like Social Security and Medicare, into which working Americans fork over a portion of their paycheck for their entire lives, so they’re not getting “free” services, but only what they’ve already paid for. Food stamps are an entirely different story.
Democrats, on defense, point out that, if work requirements were imposed, “600,000 Medicaid recipients could become uninsured [and] 275,000 SNAP [food stamp] recipients could fall off the rolls each month.” But that would happen only if all those people refused the work requirements. Were they to comply—and why wouldn’t they?--no one would lose benefits. And they might actually find working a more pleasant and honorable way to spend 20 hours a week than whatever it is they now do with their time.
I hope President Biden meant it when he said he might be okay with some work requirements. The extreme left won’t like it, but they’re increasingly irrelevant. Personally, I’d love to see homeless people in Oakland wearing orange jumpsuits, clearing brush and trash from roadsides, sweeping streets, and cleaning up graffiti, instead of their current hobby, which is demanding more and more benefits while doing nothing except drugs. Of course, they would have to quit their drugs in order to get any work done. But work requirements could be just the impetus they need to straighten themselves out and re-enter decent society.
Steve Heimoff