Giving Back: Taxes, Welfare, and Reform.

In the polarized world of politics no single term evokes more illogical outrage than welfare. Those on the right call it a "moral hazard" while those on the left call it a basic government function. As is stands right now I would call it a necessary evil. Slightly reformed however welfare could become a national asset which both right and left would have reason to protect.

Before we go any further I would like to define the term "welfare" as it will be used in this post. Welfare includes unemployment, food stamps and  any other direct monetary payment from the government to the individual outside of Social Security and Disability. As it stands, practically, those who apply for welfare benefits are given few responsibilities and have no other requirement other than proving a sufficient level of poverty or lack of employment in order to receive government money. How is it that those who receive from society are not required to give back to that same society?

Think of it this way. I for example work about 45 hours a week. Of those 45 hours 9 of them are taken out by the government in the form of taxes. Since I am not receiving money for those 9 hours I am essentially working for free. I don't mind this however because I know that those 9 hours a week are going towards my share of essential service that I receive from the government. These services include, but are not limited to, Police and Fire departments, good roads and street lights, public transportation, national defense etc. The 9 hours a week I give is my responsibility to society for all of the benefits I receive in return.

Since people who receive welfare are not able to pay taxes it stands to reason that they should give back some of their time to society in another way. I propose that way to be a community service requirement.
A community service requirement benefits everyone! Community service could include,

•  Neighborhood beautification (Planting flowers, cleaning vacant lots, scrubbing graffiti) 
• Working at charitable community organizations (food banks, big brother big sister, a local church, school, or library) 
• Directly working for the community, (unpaid local government positions, neighborhood watches or volunteer fire departments, cross walk guards).     

All of these activities would have immediate and long lasting benefits to the welfare recipients community.

Community service also benefits the person receiving welfare. By preforming community service these people will gain respect from the community they live in and are giving back to. It will transform those people from valueless takers to valuable contributors. It would eliminate the stigma associated with welfare in general. The community service requirement also gives people the opportunity to work. By volunteering they can build resumes meet other people, develope contacts and perhaps even turn their community service into a paying job. It gives them control and direction and offers opportunities at a time in their lives when they need it most.

 A community service requirement would reduce abuse. It would reduce abuse by attaching strings to what is now essentially free money. Those people in the system, a minority, who through fraud and abuse receive government assistance would lose the incentive to so since they would have to work for it.

Finally, it would blunt the people opposed to welfare by redefining the average welfare recipient. They could no longer tout "Welfare Queens" and lazy leeches looting hard working Americans. They would be forced to acknowledge that these Americans, despite financial hardship, are giving back their fair share to society. And once entrenched politicians would be hard pressed to cut funding to programs that not only benefit the 47% but the other 53% as well.