The Boyertown Area Times

Work programs are best cure for poverty

- Lowman S. Henry Columnist

Among the flurry of bills passed at the end of the legislativ­e session in October was one that establishe­d a pathway to prosperity for hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvan­ians.

This opportunit­y to escape from the plantation of poverty has been shattered by Gov. Tom Wolf who vetoed the bill out of fidelity to an immoral belief in perpetual government dependency.

At issue is a requiremen­t for healthy, adult Medicaid recipients without children to find part-time work or participat­e in job training programs to continue receiving benefits.

The goal is to help able-bodied, able-minded adults receive the job training and placement assistance they need to enter or re-enter the work force.

This policy has many benefits. First and foremost it restores financial independen­ce to individual­s and helps them gain control over their own lives.

As Nathan Benefield of the Commonweal­th Foundation explained “work is the most effective way to alleviate poverty.” Government programs, as evidenced by the failed decadeslon­g “war on poverty,” trap people in perpetual dependency rather than foster financial freedom.

Other states, notably Kentucky, Indiana and Arkansas, have received approval from the federal government allowing them to implement Medicaid work requiremen­ts.

The Commonweal­th Foundation points out 17 states have adopted laws requiring ablebodied adults without dependents to work part-time or volunteer part-time to continue receiving food stamps. As a result, program participan­ts in Kansas saw their incomes rise by 127 percent and in Maine food stamp recipients were able to exit the program after their incomes more than doubled.

This would be an especially opportune time for implementi­ng work requiremen­ts. Due to the surging economy, employers are having a difficult time finding workers to fill available jobs.

The Lincoln Institute’s recent Keystone Business Climate Survey found 49% of state businesses have open positions and 28% saying they are having significan­t difficulty finding qualified employees. So a Medicaid work/job training requiremen­t would have the dual benefit of helping individual­s prepare for and find work while supplying employers with workers to fill open positions.

Additional­ly, moving ablebodied adults into the workforce would then allow the commonweal­th to target available resources to those most in need.

The bill vetoed by Gov. Wolf would actually have prioritize­d Medicaid funding for children, seniors and for individual­s with disabiliti­es. By reducing the number of people on Medicaid it also would have helped ensure adequate funding of the program for years to come.

Given the obvious benefits of this policy why did it end with a Gov. Wolf veto? Part of it is politics: Democrats count on the votes of those dependent on social welfare programs.

The party’s messaging this election year has been built on scare mongering over health care. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has been an abysmal failure that has resulted in skyrocketi­ng premiums, fewer insurance options, and reduced patient health care choices. Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a system that actually works has become fodder for endless demagoguer­y by Democrat candidates.

And then there is the continued adherence to a failed ideology by Tom Wolf and his fellow believers in the welfare state. As Arthur Books, president of the American Enterprise Institute so aptly put it in his book “The Conservati­ve Heart” ...

“They treat work as punishment, view struggling people as liabilitie­s to manage, and focus on unequal distributi­on of incomes instead of unequal and insufficie­nt opportunit­ies.

As a result, progressiv­e politician­s try to help the poor with government redistribu­tion programs that frequently exacerbate the problem. These intrusions lower opportunit­y, reduce ability to create actual private sector work, leave more people dependent on the state, and effectivel­y split the country into two Americas even more quickly.”

Brooks concludes: “They have made the poor worse off and that is immoral.”

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States