By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
Everyone agrees that there are times when “tough love” is necessary, yet many of us back away from applying it when the time comes. We feel sorry for the lazy or misbehaving individuals and give them another chance. And one more chance. And one more chance — until we reach the breaking point and realize that our leniency is doing more harm than good.
There is another angle to consider: the possibility that there are people who look the other way when friends or family members are experiencing difficulties in life, not because they think that doing so will coax their loved ones into solving their problems on their own, but because it will be inconvenient for those dishing out the tough love, or cost them time and money to get involved.
These considerations also apply to the question of welfare reform. No one will quarrel with the proposition that we should seek to eliminate welfare “abuse,” to discover and remove benefits from those who are taking advantage of the system. Bill Clinton remains a favorite of liberal Democrats, in spite of the fact that in 1996 his administration passed the The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in an effort to “end welfare as we know it.”
The Clinton administration’s stated goal was to root out welfare cheats and get people off the welfare rolls and into the workforce — because it would be better for them. An application of tough love, if you will.
The question is how to tell the difference between those who are in genuine need of government assistance and those who are using it as a crutch. The state of Maine has been coming under a great deal of heat of late for the way it is drawing that line. Maine decided to act when it discovered, in the words of Mary Mayhew, commissioner of Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, that “a third of the state is on welfare.”
This is what led Mayhew’s boss, Gov. Paul LePage, to institute a series of reforms shortly after his election in 2011. The Daily Signal, a publication of the Heritage Foundation, reports that since LePage assumed the governorship, “Maine has reduced enrollment in the state’s food stamp program by over 58,000.” There are now 197,000 people on food stamps, down from a high of 255,663 in February 2012.
Commissioner Mayhew says the decline is a result of Maine’s elimination of the “waiver of the work requirement previously attached to food stamps….Under the new legislation, recipients would need to work 20 hours per week, volunteer for about an hour a day, or attend a class to receive food stamps past three months.” This is similar to what the Clinton administration did in 1996.
Similar reforms have been made regarding Medicaid. LePage and Mayhew have rolled back Medicaid eligibility. With a population of roughly 1.3 million, Maine had 357,000 individuals receiving Medicaid benefits when LePage took office. Today, 287,000 people are on Medicaid. Says Mayhew, “The program grew out of control, never mind that the resources that had to be devoted to Medicaid were being taken away from education, infrastructure, and our efforts to reduce the tax burden on the state of Maine.”
Has Maine gone too far? Are we witnessing tough love or irresponsible social policy that benefits the rich and the middle class at the expense of the poor? Critics of LePage’s and Mayhew’s policies contend it is the latter. Some go so far as to call the reforms a “war on the poor” and Mayhew “Commissioner Evil.”
But Mayhew is not backing down. At an anti-poverty forum in Washington, D.C., hosted by The Heritage Foundation, she said, “I can’t underscore enough that part of the issue is that government is too big, my agency is too large, and people are trying to preserve their jobs. We have got to reduce the size and scope of these agencies if we are going to have communities really take on the responsibility of supporting these families and these individuals on those pathways” to self-sufficiency.
To illustrate her point, Mayhew told a story about one of her first days on the job as commissioner, when she toured a substance abuse treatment facility for adolescents: “I was taken aback by one of the youths who came up to me — it was actually several youths who were just completely focused on whether I could help them get on Social Security Disability Insurance,” the federally run benefits program that provides aid to people who are unable to achieve gainful employment due to a permanent disability.
“These were 15-year-old, 16-year-old young men clearly battling addiction, but who had decided that the answer for them was to pursue disability insurance, rather an end to their addiction and becoming productive members of the workforce. And, frankly, as we all look at that pathway, that truly is committing individuals to a lifetime of poverty.”
The question: Are LePage and Mayhew genuinely looking for a way to help the people of Maine currently on welfare — by getting them off welfare and into the workforce? Or are they looking for a way to advance their careers by saving the taxpayers of Maine some money by ignoring the genuine needs of the downtrodden? Only Mayhew and LePage know what is in their hearts. All people, in Maine and across the country, must ask themselves the same question.
I’ll close with an anecdote. At a former parish of mine, I worked on a committee that collected donated clothes for the poor. The chairman of the committee told me that many people in the parish accused him of “being a socialist.” His response? He said he “didn’t care what people call me,” that all he wanted to do was follow Jesus’ instruction to help the poor and the needy. I avoided debating the issue with him. I liked the man. I knew he was well-intentioned, what people might call a “bleeding heart” and a “do-gooder.” I didn’t think he really understood what was meant by socialism.
One morning we were delivering boxes of clothes to an apartment with many residents on welfare, near New Haven, not far from Yale’s campus. The lobby was crowded with young men in their 20s, smoking and joking around.
When we exited toward where our cars were parked, he said to me, “You know, it’s a darn shame. Those guys will take the best of the stuff we just left off, just like they do with the food stamps that women in the building get. They don’t work. They live on welfare and disability and hang around here all day. I wish I knew what do about it.”
“Maybe someone should find a way to cut them off,” I responded.
“No, no” he answered. “Too many good people would get hurt in the process.”
What is the line Winston Churchill used about the Soviet Union? “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress