| CAUGHT IN THE WELFARE TRAP |
| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Monday, May 19 2003 |
| |
| Sophie is a victim of Sept. 11. It doesn't matter that she was miles away from the World Trade Center on that day. Her husband lost his job as a driver for a furniture store in Miami as a result of the slumping economy that came after 9-11. They had to move in with her disabled mother and begin collecting welfare. Now she is a victim of the welfare system.
Six months after losing his job, Sophie's husband was rehired on a part-time basis. He works three days a week, making $85 dollars a day. She was staying home to care for her 1-year-old child until the government told her she needed to go out and find a job and provided her with subsidies to pay for child care while she did it.
The good news is that Sophie found a job. The bad news is that she was forced to quit shortly after starting. One reason is that she had no way to get the baby to child care in the morning and make it to work on time. The day care opened at 6 a.m.; Sophie and her husband had to be at work at 7 a.m. in a different county. They wanted to move to that county but could not afford the move. The other problem is that once they both worked, their child-care subsidies would be significantly reduced.
Sophie's dilemma is similar to the one facing thousands of low-income women across the country. A report by the General Accounting Office shows that 19 states have reduced access to child care for low-income families by making it more difficult for individuals to qualify for subsidies. Also, nine states have begun using waiting lists for child-care subsidies. Eight states stopped providing subsidies to new families applying for child care. And 10 states have increased co-payments that families must pay to get child care.
Some people are lucky enough to have family members help out with the care of their children. But if parents don't have that safety net, what are they supposed to do? Leave the kids home alone? Take the kids to work? Drop them off at a neighbor's house?
It's very easy for politicians and even regular taxpayers to argue that people should not have to depend on the government to take care of their kids for them. It's also easy to criticize those on welfare who are capable of working yet end up staying home with their children while the government pays their expenses. But it's also easy to figure out how difficult that is for some families, particularly single mothers who have to support themselves and their children on minimum wages.
Now that Congress is discussing changes in the welfare system, President George W. Bush wants states to put more welfare recipients to work and to make each person work more hours. The problem Democrats have with that proposal is that it doesn't include an increase in funds for additional child care.
In recent years, welfare rolls have been cut by more than half. More and more people who depended solely on the government for subsidies have found jobs and have become self-
sufficient. However, if child-care funds are cut or not increased, many of those people could very well be forced to quit their jobs and stay home, take care of their kids and go back on welfare.
That is the dilemma that Sophie faces. She truly believes that a job is her ticket to the American dream, but if she goes back to work, she will lose the benefits she needs to get out of the vicious circle of poverty. Unfortunately, her salary -- even combined with her husband's -- will not be enough to get by.
I hope lawmakers think of women like Sophie and others caught in the welfare trap when Congress takes up the thorny issue of welfare reform. Instead of looking for ways to cut back, lawmakers should provide the aid that low-income families need to become truly independent. |
