Welfare’s effect on poverty has long been the subject of controversy in the United States. A new study released by Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute on Aug. 19 produced startling results detailing how federal welfare programs have become more profitable than minimum wage jobs in many states.

Ending this cycle that has helped to create long-term dependents should be the primary goal of future welfare reform legislation.

At this point in time, the federal government provides 72 separate programs providing money for low-income individuals.

According to Tanner, in 33 states, welfare currently is better paying than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 more states and the District of Columbia, the total welfare package pays more than a $15-an-hour job.

Welfare is supposed to provide a social safety net for those that truly need one. It should not be intended to be more lucrative than minimum wage jobs, much less for entry-level positions and jobs that pay nearly double the minimum wage in many states.

Unfair welfare distribution in this country has had the unintended consequence of enabling a culture of dependency and disincentive.

Contrary to what one might expect, generous welfare payments from the federal government may actually be doing more harm than good to recipients long term. The numbers show that, by far, the single most important step for individuals to ascend up from poverty is acquiring a job. Tanner indicated that 23.9 percent of adults who don’t work are poor, whereas only 2.6 percent of full-time workers are stuck in poverty.

It is clearly more advantageous long term to strive for an entry-level job than to remain reliant on welfare. But in creating a situation where welfare recipients are quite often temporarily better off than those working at or near minimum wage, our welfare system has encouraged welfare dependence.

Nowhere are the problems with welfare in the U.S. more apparent than in New York.

Considering the fact that welfare recipients aren’t taxed, workers in New York must make over $21-an-hour in order to be better off financially than New York welfare recipients, according to the Cato Institute. To put things into perspective, $21-an-hour is actually greater than the average entry-level salary of a teacher in New York according to Tanner.

It is inexcusable that someone can conceivably receive more money from welfare than someone who wants to help kids learn for a living.

The more these individuals are given, the more they will likely come to rely on the handouts.

The purpose of welfare in the United States is to reduce poverty, and no one in their right mind would deny that this is a worthy objective. However, the results of welfare in the United States have been disappointing to nearly everyone.

The Cato Institute study has been successful in pinpointing the main problem with welfare in the U.S. — that one can be better off financially depending on government handouts than by working a minimum wage job.

However, criticizing without offering intriguing solutions is a pointless undertaking. It is also not a practice that will bode well for Republicans in upcoming elections; they’ve already been cast by Democrats as a party full of criticism but lacking bright ideas for solutions.

Welfare reform is certainly a politically contentious issue, but there’s no doubt that the public-policy needs some fixing. The first important step would be to incentivize work over welfare in those states where welfare recipients have been able to receive greater income than full-time employees.

Reducing benefit levels is sure to be politically unpopular in a weak economy, and I wouldn’t expect President Obama to want to touch it. However, it also has the potential to increase employment and help kick-start the slow economic recovery. The GOP-controlled House should strongly consider making its case for welfare reform to the American people.

Ethan Demers is a senior political science and history major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on September 3, 2013 at 1:25 am