Should California Pay Welfare Parents to Stay Home?

by Rachel Campos-Duffy (Subscribe to Rachel Campos-Duffy's posts) Jun 23rd 2009 4:00PM

Categories: Money & Work, In The News, Childcare, Education, Single parenting

Should the government pay those on welfare to stay home and care for their kids?

That's the question Los Angeles officials are asking as the number of unemployed rises and California deals with a budget crises that threatens to land the state in bankruptcy. Governor Schwarzenegger wants to eliminate Cal Works, the state's welfare to work program. LA County Supervisors prefer to make deep cuts and save the program. Their goal: Target the most expensive people.

Currently, California "Welfare to Work" recipients are required to find a job or participate in government funded training or school. While fulfilling the program requirements, the government also covers childcare costs of about $500 per child per month.

The only exception to the work and training requirement are welfare recipients with a child under the age of one. One of the easiest ways to save money is to expand the exemption to include those with a baby under two years of age and those with two or more children under age six. In other words, pay more people to stay home with their kids.

Seems like a good idea -- but how do other parents feel?

I decided to search the web for the opinions of other moms and was surprised to find how many working moms were peeved that they might be subsidizing some other woman's at-home experience. "Hey, I'd like to stay home with my kids too," was the sentiment, "but I can't afford not to work! Why should they get a free ride?"

Others complained that this proposal would set us back years in welfare reform. The government, they argue, should steer clear of any policy that might provide low-income women with an incentive to have more babies than they can financially support.

While I believe that the government ought to be in the business of saving taxpayers money, especially during tough times, there are other considerations, such as who actually makes a good at-home parent? It's impossible to separate those parents who would do well as at-home parents from those who will not. For example, I happen to have a relative on government assistance whose kids would surely be better off in daycare while mom works. At home, there is no structure and very little supervision.

In the "LA Times" article, moms who would be affected by the proposed changes were conflicted. Some looked forward to spending more time with their children, while others said that it was best for the economy and their self esteem to "push people" to train and work.

These are complicated policy questions with no easy answers. Most states are facing staggering and unsustainable budget deficits. At the same time, unemployment is at an all-time high and families are hurting. Is it best for the economy to invest in the education and training of welfare recipients or is this the time to make cuts and keep low-income parents home with their children?

Comments (22)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

ltmslov 6-23-2009 @ 4:33PM

This is a complicated post . . . welfare is supposed to be a temporary social program to assist families when they hit hard times. However, over the years it has turned into an allowance system for people who either cannot work or choose not to work. (Now, please, understand me when I say if they CANNOT work due to illness than that is a different issue and should also be addressed by Social Security Disability.) I, myself, am ONLY supportive of a welfare system that is based upon training and employment placement. This is due to the fact that we should NOT be training people to be dependent upon other peoples money (taxpayers) and/or the government. These are their lives, and children and, therefore, their responsibility. I am not saying that the temporary assistance is not warranted b/c it is but it should not be a long lasting system of payouts for people dependent on the government system for survival. SO, my answer, to whether parents should be paid to stay home with their children is a resounding "NO!"

I realize that I am going to get a lot of negative responses due to my opinion. I would, however, offer my past as a justification. I am a child of the welfare system. At times my parents used it correctly for temporary assistance (welfare to work:my mother was training to be a librarian) when hard times fell upon us and in other instances they lied about qualifications to keep or gain welfare. I was a child of DHS visits and taught to lie about whether we had "new" toys and things that would seem suspicious and, therefore, my history gives me a unique perspective on what I feel is justification for welfare assistance.

It is meant to be assistance not a way of life . . .it is meant to be temporary not a payout for stay-at-home parents. Part of having children is the responsibility to raise and financially provide for those children. And, remember once you give the government (taxpayer) that financial responsibility you also allow them the opportunity to ask questions about parenting (DHS workers), teenager contraceptives, school, and other uniquely parental decisions. Once you give those choices away, who is the parent?

Melissa 6-23-2009 @ 5:16PM

I am all for the Cal Works program, too....I was on it after I had my daughter (I lost my job because I chose to have a baby lol), and after I found work they helped me with child care and transportation money....well, this whole budget cut thing has been happening since last year, because in October, they all of a sudden said "oh, you have to pay family fees for your child care, because you work." So my response was "so what you're telling me is that if I sat on my butt and did nothing I could get free child care?" They had no answer for me....then they cut my transportation money, too, because I was WORKING! They said that the only ones who get that money are the ones who do their training and job finding program, or who go to school....let me tell you how easy it is to get out of their job search program a few times a week....I was in there one day (before I found a job last year), and two girls were talking about calling in the next day and saying they had interviews....that way, they could get out of job club for the day (that's what they call it) and go to the beach! I believe in and agree with a system that trains people and helps them find jobs, and helps them while they transition, but for every person that truly needs the help, there are about 4 or 5 people that are just popping out kids to get more money, and it sucks for people like me who HAVE to work, but are still having a hard time because they cut every program to help working parents.

flaca 6-24-2009 @ 4:48AM

I am a survivor of a 10 year abusive relationship and i will say that THANK GOD FOR CALWORKS!! I had no employment, was a stay at home mom, no money, no food, the ex left my three children and myself with nothing. Calworks helped me go to school, get computer skills, take care of my babies, and help me feel like I am worth something. We would have been on the streets without Cal Works. I am grateful, so grateful!

christine 7-05-2009 @ 4:54AM

Do you realize that under President Clinton TANF (temporary assistance to needy families) now has a lifetime limit for receipt of benefits? Additionally, in my state, families cannot receive cash benefits without participating in job training programs and activities. The maximum amount of cash a family can receive is just over $500 a month--regardless of family size. I've worked with many families and single moms who have received TANF grants, and they are certainly not doing any partying--with rent and utility assistance as well as food stamps, most have maybe an extra $10 a month after paying bills and expenses, if they are lucky.

I find this post to be extremely classist, especially coming from a woman who is privileged enough to be staying at home with her children.

Karen 6-23-2009 @ 5:24PM

Well, it appears they are only saying to have moms stay home until their child is 2, so I would think that most moms would be capable of handling the care and direct supervision of a child up until 2 years old even if they weren't offering the best interaction, etc. I cannot think of a situation (outside of abuse) that an under 2 isn't BEST left in the care of the mother. While there may be exceptions, I think in general it is a good plan and those exceptions need to be investigated by CPS.

Additonally, any stay at home mom should be required to take some type of on-line courses so that they are ready to transition to and more intensive school environment, or into the workforce once the child reaches 2 years of age. I'm big on accountability. Even if it was just an online typing class, or basic office skills, or even parenting classes - something that they are required to do and pass in order to continue to receive assistance.

Additionally, I've alwasy wondered why we didn't set up state run child care centers for children of welfare parents, staffed by welfare parents and all the better if the administrators and supervisors were FORMER welfare parents that worked themselves up through the ranks, earned additional education credits (early childcare or what have you) and were able to mentor new hires. This would certainly be feasible in urban areas with dense populations.

Becca 6-23-2009 @ 6:19PM

Maybe this would be a good time for something my brother came up with. Take half of the welfare parents and send them to school, training whatever, set the others up to do daycare. At first it might not save much money, however as people get used to the idea I think that things will settle down and money will be saved. Every one keeps their benifits as long as they do what is expected of them. Some parents will find a job and get out of the system, and some of the daycare worker parents will decide to do that as a perminent job.

SKL 6-23-2009 @ 6:32PM

I don't understand why they pay anything at all. OK, I do understand the concept - make it a little easier for them to work on doing the right thing - but after decades / generations of proof that this has only the opposite effect, I don't understand why they persist in wasting money and ruining lives in this way.

If the concern is that we don't want to see anyone starve, give them surplus commodities that don't require cooking and house them in simple dormitories until they figure out how to support themselves and their kids.

The whole point of welfare-to-work is that paying parents to stay home (which is what they used to do when I was a kid) only perpetuated their dependent status. And that kids growing up dependent on the government have all kinds of problems that they wouldn't have if they saw their parents go to work and feed them - even if they ate and dressed less well. Not to mention the fact that if you can stay in that situation by having more kids, there is an incentive - or at least less disincentive - to keep having more dependent kids that you can't feed on your own. How quickly we forget.

I don't even agree with all the free child care. Why should some people have to pay for child care while others do not? Why is it that the people given the most perks are those who do the least to deserve them? I could see providing a backup for, say, going to a job interview. But let's get real. These people have friends and relatives who could sit for their kids if they had a job. Where are the kids' grandparents, etc.? Some may live too far away, but that's the exception and we act like it's the norm.

We all know too many parents who managed to get their education, upgrade their career, AND take care of their kids at the same time, without any government assistance.

But hey, if California wants to forget everything we've learned and make things worse, they had better not hit me (i.e., the US treasury) up for the money.

LS 6-24-2009 @ 9:34AM

SKL, you KNOW they're going to hit us up for the money!!! California is too BIG to fail!!!

Brittany 7-26-2009 @ 12:42PM

Unfortunately, I was brought up on welfare by a mother who abused the system and spent her extra money on alcohol- not food or bills.

I hate the welfare system, I really do. In fact, I really hate the government having any part in my family life, or in your family life, and I think that it is a shame that my mother spent your money on alcohol and the government enabled it.

Social Darwinism is what I live by. If you can't take care of them, don't have them. If an "accident" happens, there's adoption, church, family, and community. There are also free condoms and last time I checked ( although I REALLY DO NOT ADVOCATE this) there is also abortion in this country for as little as a $450, one time fee. Much less expensive than raising a child.

I know that not everyone is like my mother, and I do stand beside temporary assistance, but there are so many alternatives to welfare. I am now 21 years old, I joined the reserves, work full time I'm getting school paid for and I pay for all of my own bills with not support from anyone. If an "accident" occurred right now I would be fine to handle it on my own and I don't know why others wouldn't be. I grew up in poverty too, but that experience should make us stronger, not needier!

To hell with welfare! Hands up for for making America's citizens stronger and more able to support themselves and their children!

Chrysee 6-24-2009 @ 9:25AM

No no no. I'm not in favor of any system that encourages and rewards people for doing nothing. There should never be the option of "making" (getting) more money by NOT working.

areshea 6-24-2009 @ 2:30PM

In my opinion welfare should only be helping those with low income jobs. I'm sorry but I lived in california for 33 years and had 4 children and struggled being homeless twice. We did not qualify for any public assistance, why? Cause both my husband and I worked full time. His job paid double minimum wage and mine paid a few dollars more then minimum wage. Childcare is what always broke us. I would take lower paying jobs so I could be home during the day with the kids and work evenings and weekends when my husband was home. Even so we were always struggling with bills and the outrageous price of rent in california. If we had had childcare subsidized or free I would have been able to work a full time job that paid well. I wouldn't have needed to try and apply for food stamps that I didn't qualify for and my children would never have known what it is like to be homeless. Yet my husband's sister on welfare to work, never worked more then six months. Wasted time taking classes and yet she was never kicked off, her children are teenagers. She got money, food stamps and an apartment for showing up for classes, but never working. However, there are people that struggle working two minimum wage jobs and not gettting help because they work. We should be helping those that are willing to help themselves and showing it. If anything they should cover childcare and no classes, fast food and wal mart are always hiring. Times are tough and you take any job you can get.

Lou 6-25-2009 @ 5:03PM

Welfare is there to help those get back on their feet....not live off of it for the rest of their lives. I know a person that is on welfare and does not even try to find a job and all she does is party, buy clothes and collect walfare checks. That is the reason why California is broke today because of people abusing the system. I moved to Georgia from California 3 years ago and the welfare system out here will only pay you $200 a month regardless of how many people is in your family. They just don't want people to be sitting on their butts all day collecting welfare checks....maybe California should do the same.

Lou @ http://EarningFreeMoney.com

Linda 6-27-2009 @ 7:26AM

If the government didn't take so much money out of your paycheck in the first place, you could more easily afford child care as a single parent or as a couple, one parent could afford to stay home. Why do we keep looking to big daddy government to solve all our problems?

chris 6-29-2009 @ 12:57PM

I think those who use welfare should absolutely stay at home with their children. Nothing is more important than being with your child, and when parents are forced to go out and work there is the issue of childcare, so it's a wash and, like I said, parents are best at home with their children. But, that having been said, I also think that if they are given welfare there also need be some stipulations; as one of the users above put it, it is supposed to be TEMPORARY assistance, NOT A WAY OF LIFE! Meaning here's this wonderful program that will allow you to stay home and parent your child- THIS child, and this is not a pass for people to keep having children when they cannot afford them! I think it would be a wonderful idea if, with the benefits, the mothers are offered a choice: they can have the benefits, stay home with the child as they wish for perhaps even longer than currently IF they are willing to take birth control in order that they do not keep having children they can't afford. I understand that some people think it is a right to have children- I disagree. It is a gift and a blessing, and it seems like we reward irresponsibility rather than cure it by continuing to offer welfare to women who continue to have children they can't even afford- and usually by Fathers who don't remain in the child's life. The birth control idea is a great way to encourage responsibility because while everyone deserves a break for a mistake they made such as unplanned, unexpected or irresponsible pregnancies, they also need to be made aware how not to make the same mistake twice. We as a society need to take care of each other, but why should we keep rewarding people who don't "get" it and are likely to keep not getting it over and over? If we can teach more responsibility on a social and spiritual level, perhaps there will come a day where we need welfare less and less- and someday not at all, ideally.

SKL 6-29-2009 @ 2:17PM

First, I disagree with your premise that nothing is more important than being with your child. If that is true, then it is wrong for any parent (male or female) to work. Or, we should be carrying our kids on our backs while we work. No, the correct principle is that each person should provide for his/her child's care. Being with the child - some of the time - is nice, but it isn't more important than providing for the child's basic needs. If we take your argument to its logical extension, all parents should have a claim to a welfare check - and that means taxing the hell out of everyone who doesn't happen to be parenting at the moment.

Second, there is only one way to teach responsibility, and that's to let people experience realistic consequences. Having a free ride is not a realistic consequence of undesireable behavior. Look at the history - it does not work. It never has worked. The families that come out better are the exception rather than the rule. Welfare destroys lives. In fact, ya know how kids sue their schools for not forcing them to learn to read? Well, maybe some kids should sue the welfare system for preventing their learning any positive life skills. Ha! That would be a funny one. They would probably win - and the taxpayers would pay for that too!

happyness3 6-30-2009 @ 9:40AM

I was recently laid off from my job, and it was offered to me to let me just go do some community service and they would pay me cash and my daycare. Not that I don't think that community service is a valuable thing in a community, but how does that help me find a job and be self sufficienent? When asked my case worker this, she simply told me that some people didn't want a job, and this was a way to get them to do something!! Luckily, I only needed food stamps for a month and I didn't have to worry about this any longer. They should be helping get people jobs, not enabling them not to work. The longer you are out of the workforce, the harder it is to get a job.

Beth 6-30-2009 @ 3:29PM

I am sooo tired of hearing about how hard it is for those people who are "disadvantaged" and "poverty stricken". My husband grew up in a town where steel workers and mine working was the main thing going. There were times when they had nothing!! they didn't ask for anything and they were given nothing. My husband worked his butt off to make something of himself, yes, we make close to 6 figures a year now, but it came from HARD WORK! all these people on welfare today, they know nothing about hard work and sacrifice. If it were my choice, there would be NO MORE WELFARE. I can see being given a hand up, but I am tired of always being the one to give the hand outs. Let the church and family take care of those in need like they used to and welfare be damned.

Alicia 6-30-2009 @ 4:09PM

I'm writing this as a stay at home mom!I do not receive any kind of State Assistance my husband recently went through a lay off and instead of us getting state assistance I started my own home based business to supplement his income! People need to understand that there is always a legal way to make money without welfare Direct sales people make a livable wage by still being able to stay home and care for their children! My husband has actually taken another job that pays less than what he used to make but he is still working and I still care for my children!I know people who had to use welfare, and those people used the money they got to start a daycare! They now get paid by other working parents to not only stay at home with their kids but also get paid to care for other peoples children! Maybe Calif. should take a lesson from my state our welfare program takes you off support after 5 years! They also give some parents a one time excemption from work activities untill your child is 6 months old and offer assistance to families who need things for work! Quit paying people to stay home!! It doesn't work!!!

Eva 7-09-2009 @ 2:53AM

HELL NO! if your on welfare you need to get up and get a job. a real job, quit actin like a fool and figure your life out. if your on wellfare you cant provide for children anyway, why should the state of California make it easyer on parents who arnt providing for their children. stop complaining and get to it. you dont need extra time with your kids, you need to provide for them. they arnt going to turn on you because you work the night shift instead of playing games with them. figure your stuff out and quit taking up my tax money, your children will forgive you when you bring home dollars not food stamps.

Rick 7-27-2009 @ 10:26PM

OUT OF WORK? SO WAS I, NOW I'M MAKING AN AVERAGE OF $100 A DAY AND SO CAN YOU !!

http://website.ws/vimag

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

How To Submit Photos:
If you'd like your children (any age will do!) featured on ParentDish, upload photos into the ParentDish Flickr Pool. Be sure to read our main Flickr page for more information.