, utilities, car, and other expenses, and receive his $380 per month for food. So this family makes $1900, not because both parents work hard, but because one parent doesnt work. So in effect we are paying the mother $4,500 to do nothing. If that mother had gotten a job, even if it was only part-time she could have made on average $10,000 for her family, it is this unwillingness to work that keeps her family in poverty. California, for instance, spent $289 million in 1994 on a job-training program called Greater Avenues for Independence (G.A.I.N.). A recent study by the Manpower Demonstration and Research Corporation found that single parents who joined the program are now earning an average 20% more than people who did not take part in the program. I think more programs like this should take the place of the original welfare programs.(Sara) Welfare is supposed to be a last resort, used only when both parents can do no more to support their family or when one parent is unable to support his or her family. Instead, it is being depended on as a secondary income in many households. One of the largest problems with public assistance is that it is too easy to get. Welfare needs reform quickly, before it becomes too hard to get the American people off of it. Opponents of welfare reform argue that if we take away benefits from the families who receive them, we will be punishing the men, women, and children who depend on this money to survive. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth because people in need usually find a way to get along. Welfare reform and benefit reduction will instill a healthy work ethic into otherwise lazy and irresponsible adults. This will also cause the newly employed parents to instill these values in their children, and provide proper role models for their children. Also, the cause of poverty is not the dire shortage of available jobs or livable wages. This might have been the case in the 20s or...
