• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • VIDEO: Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed

    Our newest video highlights a recent paper on welfare reform by Heritage’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley. In the video and this new report, we reveal some startling statistics:

    • Welfare spending is climbing faster than spending for education, defense, and even Social Security and Medicare.
    • After adjusting for inflation, welfare spending is 13 times higher today than in 1965, when the War on Poverty started
    • The average out-of-wedlock birthrate is 40%, while African-American populations see a rate of 72%. In 1965, the average was 7%.
    • Under President Obama, welfare spending is projected to increase $10.3T over the next decade
    • Meant to provide temporary assistance, half of all food stamp aid goes to individuals who have been in the program more than 8 years

    Simply put, welfare spending, like most government spending, is on an unsustainable path.

    But despite all the gloom, Rector and Bradley are clear that there is hope for reform. In 1996, welfare reform was hugely successful. As a result of those reforms, “caseloads shrank by over 60 percent, 2.8 million families moved off the rolls and into jobs, and 1.6 million fewer children were left in poverty.” Rector and Bradley make the case that these successes can be repeated again. And, moreover, they must. With exploding deficits and a soaring national debt, it is absolutely critical that America get a hold on its spending.

    To that end, the paper lists five principles of reform:

    1. Slowing the growth of the welfare state. Unending government deficits are pushing the United States toward bankruptcy. The U.S. simply cannot afford the massive increases in welfare spending planned by President Barack Obama. Welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years. Congress needs to establish reasonable fiscal constraints within the welfare system. Once the current recession ends, aggregate welfare spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. After this rollback has been completed, the growth of welfare spending should be capped at the rate of inflation.
    2. Promoting personal responsibility and work. Able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or to prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Food stamps and housing assistance, two of the largest programs for the needy, should be aligned with the TANF program to require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work for a minimum of 30 hours per week.
    3. Providing a portion of welfare assistance as loans rather than as grants. Welfare to able-bodied adults creates a potential moral hazard because providing assistance to those in need can lead to an increase in the behaviors that generate the need for aid in the first place. If welfare assistance rewards behaviors that lead to future dependence, costs can spiral out of control. A reformed welfare policy can provide temporary assistance to those in need while reducing the moral hazard associated with welfare by treating a portion of welfare aid as a loan to be repaid by able-bodied recipients rather than as an outright grant from the taxpayer.
    4. Ending the welfare marriage penalty and encouraging marriage in low-income communities. The collapse of marriage is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of children in the U.S. were born out of wedlock; today, the figure is over 40 percent. Most alarmingly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African–Americans is 72 percent. The outcomes for children raised in single, never-married homes are greatly diminished. Current means-tested welfare programs penalize low-income recipients who get married; these anti-marriage penalties should be reduced or eliminated. In addition, government should provide information on the importance of marriage to individuals in poor communities who have a high risk of having children out of wedlock. Particular emphasis should be placed on the benefits to children of a married two-parent family.
    5. Limit low-skill immigration. Around 15 percent ($100 billion per year) of total means-tested welfare spending goes to households headed by immigrants with high school degrees or less. One-third of all immigrants lack a high school degree. Over the next 10 years, America will spend $1.5 trillion on welfare benefits for lower-skill immigrants. Government policy should limit future immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The legal immigration system should not encourage immigration of low-skill immigrants who would increase poverty in the nation and impose vast new costs on already overburdened taxpayers. In addition, the government should not provide amnesty or “earned citizenship” to illegal immigrants, which would provide illegal immigrants with full access to the U.S. welfare system. Of the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., at least 50 percent lack a high school degree. Giving this population amnesty and access to welfare would lead to a staggering increase in future welfare costs.

    Please take a moment to share this video with your friends and family. Americans need to know the challenges we face and the solutions that are available.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    24 Responses to VIDEO: Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed

    1. Billie says:

      It certainly doesn't help when government ADVERTISES ($$$$$) assistance. It certainly doesn't help when one of the government advertisements ($$$$) s to get WELFARE parents to DEMAND free (tax paid) lunches be nutritional for their children. Many parents have lost their sense of providing to their own. Thanks to tax paid GOVERNMENT RESOURCES!

    2. Billie says:

      It is important also, to always consider the employment rate. There should be no more employment to (illegal) immigrants when there isn't enough for legal Americans.

    3. Pingback: » Financial News Update – 06/30/10 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    4. Pingback: Freedom's Lighthouse » Heritage Foundation Video: “Welfare Can and Must be Reformed”

    5. dorothy healy, foste says:

      Slightly over half of all Americans — 52.6 percent — now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That’s up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass 55 percent, where it stood in 1980 on the eve of President’s Reagan’s move to scale back the size of government.

    6. Frank Seymour, Merre says:

      The middle class, the working people of this country, are footing the bill for the entire country! I don't claim to know what the percentage of us are in the middle class; but what I do know, is that in order for us, the middle class to get a pay check, we are subjected to drug testing, more and more taxes and then all of the other daily bullshit that comes with holding down a job to EARN a living! These people on welfare don't have to do a GD thing other than fill out whatever paperwork there is to get their Welfare checks, Food Stamps, Housinf assistance and the GD list goes on! Yet the middle class still gets stuck with the bills! Even the politicians, who supposedly work for us, are robbing us, giving themselves 15% pay raises, a health care system that we (the middle class) pay for and all their other benefits that we pay for! The average American worker has to work 30, 40 or more years to TRY to retire! These moron Senators can do one term (4 years) in office and retire with their FULL benefits! This sure as hell is even close to being FAIR to the American workers! The American people need to take back our country and revise some of these benefits our so-called lawmakers get at our expense!

    7. Russ Errett Sebring says:

      ?

      There are six reasons that I object to government welfare and subsidies.1: The

      government has a history of providing mediocre service. So why do we continue to force

      government to take on more duties when the private sector can do much better.

      2: There is a continued battle over the separation of church and state. Compassion is the

      bailiwick of religions. Why does the government speak out of both sides of its mouth? On one

      side they want to disassociate themselves from religion and on the other side they want to hijack

      religion?s principles.

      3: Democracy vs. Republic. I have noticed that the evolution of our government has morphed

      the democracy and republic together. I don?t know who started it. Was it the despots who used

      the promise of a free lunch to buy votes or was it the citizens who demanded the politician to

      provide a free lunch for their vote2 I guess it makes no difference, the outcome is the same. The

      citizens will vote themselves money from the treasure in a democracy, or in a republic only vote

      for candidates who promise to give them money from the treasure.

      4: We may not want to admit it, but we are all greedy and we are all tightwads. It all depends

      on where we stand and what the time. When we go to work we are a producer and we are greedy,

      and when we go to the store we are consumers and are tightwads. This is what makes the

      competitive free enterprise system work. That is until the government interferes.

      If the producers decides to raise prices then the tightwads will refuse to buy. When the producer loses business and moans to the government to provide subsidies or welfare so that their

      creed will be satisfied. The producers on the other hand should not be rewarded (unemployment

      compensation, housing subsidies, farm subsidies, food stamps, etc.) for not playing the

      competitive market place game by the rules.

      5: Another unintended consequences is the breakdown of the family and is fostered by the

      National Organization of women. The present day thinking is that the female can do just fine

      without the male, but he statistics prove otherwise. Before we were civilized the only thing

      offsprings had to learn was how to get their food and to protect themselves. As civilization

      progressed the offspring had to learn more and more. This learning did not negate the animal

      instinct, only to subdue it. I don?t think that civilization has advanced far enough to eliminate

      our animal instincts. Therefore it still takes a lot of learning (such a big task that it takes two

      parents) to subdue the animal behavior. Just scan the newspaper and listen to the news to see that

      animal behavior is still with us.

      6: Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution states this: ‘nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

      property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without

      just compensation.”

      The Webster Dictionary definition of money. “Stamped pieces of medal, or any paper notes

      authorized by a government as a medium of exchange. Since money is a medium of exchange

      then we can substitute the word money in place of property. Therefore we can substitute money

      for property in; “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or money, without due process of law; nor shall

      private money (taxes) be taken for public use, without just compensation”

      Another word that needs to be defined is compensation. “1, To make up for: counterbalance 2,

      to make payment to. We compensate government workers for their work. We compensate the

      military for protection. We compensate for the construction of roads. We compensate welfare

      and subsidies for … for what? The only thing I can think of is a bribe for votes.

    8. marjorie stringham, says:

      I have suggested to our leaders that recipiants of Welfare should have to take a urine test before they are eligible and it must be at random times there after. The people that pay tax are required to take this test just to begin a job to pay those taxes. But I also found out that since Oregon pays money to the Fed. government which in turn sends money back to us to pay the Welfare persons, we would need to go thru the Sec. of State to even get this idea going.

      Hope this helps.

    9. B. Buckner casper WY says:

      The Bible says we will see one world government. That will come to pass. The socialists and progressives and democrats and liberals know most peole want some one else to do all the work and give them the benifits. In all the organizations I have been involved with, 20 percent of the people do all the work and 80 percent ride on, ( their) backs.

      It takes any society a very long time to figure out that socialisum only works for the eliet at the top. The rest of the people just die in the gutter with all the scum that floats down with them.

      AS long as the socialists can have ( every thing ) they want till they die, that is good enough for them. Go figure, obama, raised as a marxist, black seporitist,anti american, anti capitolist, one world government minded dictator—-what the hell do you expect. This country will be taken back 50 years in the next 2 years. Don't believe me!!!!Lok at the last 15 months.

    10. D. Durso, Missouri says:

      But the Democrats do not want people off welfare. They want them dependent upon the government for absolutely everything. Who will you vote for? The guy who wants you to get a job or the guy who hands you a check? Reform won't come until we vote the progressives out of office.

    11. Joan, Milwaukee, WI says:

      1. The 1996 reforms were only moderately successful and were never meant to be anything more. The lack of success is seen in the growth of Welfare rolls again. Had the 1996 "reform" really been successful, regrowth would not have been as quick or easy.

      2. A minimum of 40 hours work for Welfare recipients must be the one and only goal. The majority of workers who pay taxes are expected to work 40 hours a week. It is not too much to expect the Welfare recipients to do the same.

      3. All programs including food stamps and WIC should be included in the goal of ending Welfare and should be ended at the same time.

      4. Ending Welfare should be the goal and NOT ending Welfare "as we know it." That was what made the 1996 Welfare "reform" bogus from the start.

      5. Stop rewarding single mothers by choice by raising benefits for additional children. When you stop rewarding bad behavior you will see far less of it. Any children a single mother cannot feed or house should be encouraged to be placed for adoption. Children deserve to be brought into the world by TWO parents who are ready and willing and able to financially support them. Anything less is a gross disservice to children.

      6. "Families" with school aged children receiving Welfare and/or food stamps should not be allowed to have their children receive free breakfasts, lunches, and summertime lunches. Receiving food stamps indicates these "families" are being supplied with the free money to feed their children THREE meals a day. To give them both food stamps and free meals at school and in the summer is to allow these "families" to double dip and triple dip at the taxpayers' expense. Parents who do not feed their children are committing a crime and this should be handled by the police and court systems. Rewarding parents for being lazy, neglectful, abusive, whatever the case, only produces more of that behavior and creates heavier burdens for the innocent taxpayers.

      7. Do not allow Welfare recipients to move off of Welfare to Social Security Disability for reasons such as alcoholism or drug abuse. This is a large part of where the 1996 Welfare "reform" Welfare recipients went. They remain on the Dole…just on a different one.

      8. Welfare recipients do not automatically "deserve" the perks in life that taxpayers work hard to supply themselves with. Welfare recipients should not be allowed to own computers, internet hook up, expensive cell phone plans, big screen TV's, cable TV, cars valued at over $10,000, jewelry valued at over $1,000, houses or other real estate, bank accounts of more than $1,000. Anyone with a great amount of liquid or non-liquid assets should be spending those assets prior to receiving taxpayer money.

      9. Welfare recipients should not be able to swipe their food or Welfare cards at supermarkets for cash for any reason but especially not for gambling, alcohol, or drugs or a trip to Vegas or other pleasure spots. Those who do the latter should lose their benefits and be charged with theft. It is NOT their money to spend as they please. Discretionary spending is what people who WORK for their money enjoy and have a right to do. Those who take my money while supplying me with NOTHING in return should have to live with certain restrictions as to the spending of MY money.

      10. Welfare recipients should (until Welfare is eliminated) have their utilities automatically paid by the system to prevent them from running up huge bills and then skipping out on them. The cost of that behavior is passed on to the working taxpayers in the form of higher utility bills.

      11.Welfare recipients who are reported to have their windows wide open in the winter (because the heat is jacked up to its highest level) should be arrested for theft and immediately lose all of their Welfare benefits. I have seen this myself and often. If I can see it so can others and we should be able to report it to the police as a crime.

      12. Do NOT remove the marriage penalty. It will only accomplish negatives such as 1 more person needing Welfare and food stamp money each month in millions of households. As it stands, mother's latest boyfriend cannot be officially claimed or get additional money for the "family." Leave it that way. Also, bringing marriage partners into the equation will open one more can of ugly with homosexuals who will demand they be included even though marriage is not available to the majority of them. Promoting marriage is a good idea but only as a way of getting off of or avoiding Welfare in the first place and not as a new way for the "family" to be taxpayer supported.

    12. Colleen Dundon in Ca says:

      I totally agree with the article. I do have one suggestion though, proof read it again as their are errors. There are words that are running together with no spaces between them.

      I.E. "Rector and Bradley make the case that these successes canbe repeated again."

    13. Chas, Santa Rosa, Ca says:

      Where are the complaints about corporate welfare. What did the CEO of Ford do to earn 46 million dollars? How many jobs did he slash to get that windfall? CEO over compensation sucks a lot of money out of the system. We pay for weapons systems that the Pentagon does not want. I guess we shouldn't point that out since we don't want to appear anti military. But if we're going to fight wasteful spending, let's do away with no bid contracts. Competition is great until the corporations are asked to bid for a project.

    14. Chas, Santa Rosa, Ca says:

      Joan, Milwaukee, WI writes

      "Children deserve to be brought into the world by TWO parents who are ready and willing and able to financially support them. Anything less is a gross disservice to children."

      My mother in law was a single mother. She raised two kids while working as a nurse. She raised two kids who are successful capitalists. There are millions of women just like her in the USA..

      Conservatives want the government out of their lives. But they want a punitive government that punishes women who have the misfortune to lose a job and or a husband. .

    15. Billie says:

      Not understanding Chas?

    16. Russ Sebring Fl. says:

      ?

      There are six reasons that I object to government welfare and subsidies.1: The

      government has a history of providing mediocre service. So why do we continue to force

      government to take on more duties when the private sector can do much better.

      2: There is a continued battle over the separation of church and state. Compassion is the

      bailiwick of religions. Why does the government speak out of both sides of its mouth? On one

      side they want to disassociate themselves from religion and on the other side they want to hijack

      religion?s principles.

      3: Democracy vs. Republic. I have noticed that the evolution of our government has morphed

      the democracy and republic together. I don?t know who started it. Was it the despots who used

      the promise of a free lunch to buy votes or was it the citizens who demanded the politician to

      provide a free lunch for their vote2 I guess it makes no difference, the outcome is the same. The

      citizens will vote themselves money from the treasure in a democracy, or in a republic only vote

      for candidates who promise to give them money from the treasure.

      4: We may not want to admit it, but we are all greedy and we are all tightwads. It all depends

      on where we stand and what the time. When we go to work we are a producer and we are greedy,

      and when we go to the store we are consumers and are tightwads. This is what makes the

      competitive free enterprise system work. That is until the government interferes.

      If the producers decides to raise prices then the tightwads will refuse to buy. When the pro-

      ducer loses business and moans to the government to provide subsidies or welfare so that their

      creed will be satisfied. The producers on the other hand should not be rewarded (unemployment

      compensation, housing subsidies, farm subsidies, food stamps, etc.) for not playing the

      competitive market place game by the rules.

      5: Another unintended consequences is the breakdown of the family and is fostered by the

      National Organization of women. The present day thinking is that the female can do just fine

      without the male, but the statistics prove otherwise. Before we were civilized the only thing

      offsprings had to learn was how to get their food and to protect themselves. As civilization

      progressed the offspring had to learn more and more. This learning did not negate the animal

      instinct, only to subdue it. I don?t think that civilization has advanced far enough to eliminate

      our animal instincts. Therefore it still takes a lot of learning (such a big task that it takes two

      parents) to subdue the animal behavior. Just scan the newspaper and listen to the news to see that

      animal behavior is still with us.

      6: Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution states this: ‘nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

      property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without

      just compensation.”

      The Webster Dictionary definition of money. “Stamped pieces of medal, or any paper notes

      authorized by a government as a medium of exchange. Since money is a medium of exchange

      then we can substitute the word money in place of property. Therefore we can substitute money

      for property in; “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or money, without due process of law; nor shall

      private money (taxes) be taken for public use, without just compensation”

      Another word that needs to be defined is compensation. “1, To make up for: counterbalance 2,

      to make payment to. We compensate government workers for their work. We compensate the

      military for protection. We compensate for the construction of roads. We compensate welfare

      and subsidies for … for what? The only thing I can think of is a bribe for votes.

    17. Larry D, Scottsdale says:

      Support welfare reform. Long-term welfare is the leading cause of children's poverty and actually encourages out-of-wedlock births by penalizing low-income married couples. The African American community has a 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate, which keeps them dependent on the government, poor, and erases any hope that these children will rise above poverty and become well-adjusted, contributing members of society. Welfare should be used as a temporary safe haven for children while their parents learn a trade and look for a job, which will pay 20 times their welfare benefit.

    18. Loretta Reynolds, As says:

      I worked in the Food Stamp Department from 1977 to 2000. I started as a clerk and worked my way up to Lead Worker (like an assistant supervisor). I had to quit!

      I couldn't take it anymore. The people in supervisory status would not follow the guidelines set out by the Department of Agriculture. The workers were not asking for the required verification and would process the food stamp application without it. Those on SSI had only a two page form to fill out and return. Then a worker would call and go over the application with them. Some of the workers did not call the clients and would process without verification. Some of these people would say the lived alone but instead had a husband working. It is true that the SSI recipient would not get a full SSI check if the husband worked (or shouldn't if the Social Security Office knew). There was no real way to verify self employed clients. We pretty much had to go with what they provided. I personally felt self employed people should not get food stamps as there was no way to verify income. Of course, the manual stated to use income tax forms but there again, the Internal Revenue had to go by what was reported to them. I was personnally called into the Supervisor's office and was told not to ask if a client was a legal US Citizen as they were getting flack from the hispanic community that we were profiling. I told my supervisor that I asked EVERYONE if they were US Citizens as the question was on the form. The supervisor then told me it was ok as long as I asked everyone. What does that tell you? Not all questions on the applications where asked by the workers. The hispanic people could not speak or read English and we were required by law to pay for interpreters or the mother would have their children interpert for them. You knew these people were not citizens but you could not demand birth certificates (as they are probably forged anyway). I had an hispanic man in my office one day. I checked his social security number on the computer to verify wages. His number showed up with a different name at a local plant. I called Human Resource and found that their department had a copy of the social security card and it had the person's name on it that worked for them. When I confronted the individual, he said that he purchased his social security card on the streets in California. The plant did nothing about this but probably 8 years later, they were raided and there were illegal aliens working there. It is just too easy to forge birth certificates, social security cards, picture ID cards, etc. that you have no way of knowing who is really in your office.There is more and more that I could say but the Food Stamp Program did not help the people it should have. The elderly on Social Security, home paid for, only had utilities and property tax to pay out and could not proved proof of medcial expenses (You had to be an accountant to keep up with all of the receipts the Department of Agriculure required and these people where just not capable.) These elderly people would only get $10 per month in Food Stamps. Whereas a homeless individual who claimed no income would get the maximum allotment (When I left, I believe it was $134 per month.) Where is the fairness in this? Most times the "homeless" were abled bodied and where not made to look for work. Of course who knew if these people were homeless. The women with children that were supposed to receive child support and we had to anticpate the child support until a history was determine would get cut in food stamps. These women had to pay for child care and try to put food on the table. Of course some of these women had immaculate conceptions and continued to have children with no father listed on the birth certificate. The father could actually be living with the women but who can prove it. We would get Collateral Statements that were to be filled out by a non relative, preferrably their landlord. When the completed form was received how did we know that a family member didn't complete the form. Collateral statments were worthless. You didn't have time to contact each collateral to see if they completed the form as you were mandated to get the people their food stamps ASAP when you actually had 30 days to provide benefits expect if there was zero income, then the food stamps were expedited for the first month. I know that I did not leave on good terms. I was up for a Supervisory job and did not get the job because 5 years before I was training a black female. In talking to her, I explained that the people who really need the food stamps would not come in as they were too proud. I said that my mother never recieived food stamps and she worked for minimum wage with 2 children and probably would have been eligible. My mother would always state that: "She was free, white and over 21 and that she could care for us." She was an independent lady. I was actually called on the carpet for my racist statement 5 years earlier. A person that worked in the Fraud Unit got my job. At the meeting to introduce the new Supervisor, the Department Director told everyone that I would be training her! She didn't have a clue about the food stamp program and I had 22 years of experience at the time. One year after being in her supervisory position, she called me and asked how to close an application on the computer. I never did train her. She told me that should would read the manual and ask questions when needed. After one year she didn't know how to close an application and what denial code to use. That was it. I left 2 months later.Those with the Department of Agriculture that write these manuals for each state to interpret (?) would then be sent to us. Have you ever played "calling" as a child. You sit in a circle and whisper to one person a phrase and it is whispered in each child's ear until the last person who tells out loud what the phase was. Most of the time, the orginal phase would loose it's meaning. Well each state's interpretation of the manual was not always the same. These people in Washington had no clue to determine how to verify information and not punish the elderly on an earned income but gave the "homeless" person the maximum. Where is there justice? Thank you for allowing me to comment and blow some steam after all of these years.

    19. Dan, Platteville CO says:

      I may be wrong but I can't seem to recall anything in the Constitution or any founding documents indicating that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the "welfare" of the citizens. As far as I can tell, the Declaration was intended to ensure that all men (or women) are equal in the opportunities to either succeed or fail in their pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      I agree with Russ' statement above: "Compassion is the

      bailiwick of religions. Why does the government speak out of both sides of its mouth? On one side they want to disassociate themselves from religion and on the other side they want to hijack

      religion?s principles."

      The Federal Government should have nothing at all to do with welfare. Welfare is not one of the powers enumerated to it in the constitution. The reason we are all in this mess is because the Constitution was ignored.

      Americans are a very generous people, We are a Judeo-Christion nation, when help is needed, help will be received. But, not by the Government!

      We shouldn't be talking about "Reform" – we should be talking about "Restoration". We need to restore the founding principles and all of these other problems will be irrelevant.

      Nearly every problem in our country today has been caused by violations of the enumerated powers in the constitution.

    20. Clarence Crosby ,Hub says:

      The progressive goal is to bankrupt the nation to institute their socialist utopia , as long as they are running things there will be no attempt to try to cut costs or balance a budget . What I can not figure out is what the press hopes to gain by supporting this , they must know it will it will signal the end of a free press , only allowed to print what the government approves of, like pravda.

    21. jan says:

      As a labor and delivery nurse in Washington DC I see able-bodied multi-generational welfare recipients almost daily at work, and welfare reform was reversed by president Obama's "stimulus" plan. Why isn't this a major outcry and political issue , as the enormity of multi-generational welfare has clearly become such a drain (and a lifestyle) that it could bankrupt our country? What, politically, can I do about this to make it more of an "upfront" issue? My personal feeling is that this is the biggest economic challenge in our country, and is leading to a new class war between the "producers" and the "non-producers"

    22. Kathleen Henderson 2 says:

      Hello. My question is why are the illegal emigrants allowed any form of assistance. They are here illegally. Why are we giving support to them in stead of supporting our own citizens. How can we help outsiders until we help our own people. We can not help the entire world. We send money and assistance to other countries while our own citizens are dieing of starvation and sickness. How do we justify this. Help our own people first. Then reach out to other countries.

    23. Mike, Scottsdale, AZ says:

      The solution is simple, but will never be done: Cut all "Free" government assistance, welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. That way all of the abuses outlined above and elsewhere cannot be committed, and social engineering and buying votes by the left cannot take place.

      Government assistance programs, at all levels, including military contracts, are administered by overpaid, undertrained people with no incentive to save money or be efficient, so this will on.

    24. Mary Cole Massey, MD says:

      This administration has used our "stimulus" money to fund Brazil, Hamas, and any other countries he wishes. This Administration has blamed everything on something else or somebody else and will never take responsibility for anything they do. Everything was the past administrations fault, even the weather. All they know is talk and more talk and hope everyone will either concentrate on some news item so they can pass another bill, or believe whatever they are lying about. I am 81 years old and this is the most anti-American bunch in Washington DC and the most selfish, power-hungry people I have ever seen. They think only of themselves, not the poor, and how much they can make the USA believe what they are saying. Let's bring God back into our lives.. Congress and this entire administration should be paid just as the founding fathers were paid and maybe they wouldn't try to make a career of politics. Term limits and limited benefits should be a priority. Enforce laws and quit making new laws to change old laws.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×