LadySyc - I'm throwing out some ideas, but I really don't feel that I have a good solution. I really don't think I'm well enough informed (is that syntax right? it's late, and I'm tired), to make a judgment.
That said, totally eliminating welfare should be an option. I'm not really all that keen on the idea, and there is probably a happy medium, but the idea should not be discarded at face value.
My mother is on SSDI, and without it she would not be able to afford her house (it's not much, but it is hers); she still drives a POS car (a lot of miles no less, for the paltry job she can work, ironically enough), buys her clothes at a thrift shop, and by no means eats gourmet. I would not want her to lose her welfare (I stick by my definition), but is it really right to rule out an option due to personal bias?
I'm just saying, some people
qualify for welfare that have no business receiving welfare. I'm not saying to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I really think the answer lies somewhere in what UT said, about waste, and I really hope Kitsune can find that report (nudge nudge, wink wink
).
The people in the system are not the problem, and a straw man has been built to draw our ire ("welfare queens"). This draws attention away from the real issue, inefficiency from within the system. We focus on (relatively) minor trespasses on our tax dollars from the people within the system, when, maybe, we should be focusing on the system itself.