Poor families need welfare, but deserve it?

The Boston Herald

The story ran in The Patriot Ledger last Monday and it's been on my mind since. I thought about it when I went to visit my cousin who has three young children but works more than 30 hours a week, nights and weekends, because she has to if she's to make ends meet. She doesn't see her husband much because he's working 12-hour days. But that's the way it is.

She doesn't complain. She doesn't have time to.

I thought about it again when I was talking to a friend who's been working two jobs all summer because her husband took a cut in pay, and her rent went up and so did her utilities. And her kids are starting school and there are fees this year, for transportation and participation in activities, and if she doesn't work, her children will have to walk to school and won't be included in anything.

And I thought about it once more yesterday when I saw a young guy, a father of three, who labors from 10 to 10 six days a week, working another job on his only day off.

The story that's been dogging me made the front page.

It was about how some mothers on welfare were so outraged that the state had eliminated its 10-year-old, $150-dollar-per-child, back-to-school clothing allowance, that they were threatening not to send their children to school this year.

I can understand mothers being disappointed and upset that their children might not have new clothes to start a new grade. I can understand their panic. What I don't understand is the attitude that this bonus money provided by the state is their due.

One woman who was quoted in the story has four children and is pregnant with her fifth. She's never been married, she gets virtually no money from her children's fathers and she's been on welfare for 11 years.

There's no point in mentioning her name. She's too easy a target to resent. That's exactly what I found myself doing, resenting her attitude, resenting her assumption that the state owes her something, resenting her demanding for free what other people have to work hard for.

I know so many women who have limited the number of children they have because one or two are all they can afford. I know so many women and men who juggle jobs and kids, who seldom see each other they work so much, who could use a clothing allowance from the state for their children, too.

This woman lives in subsidized housing, gets a $434-a-month welfare payment and $236 in food stamps. That's not a lot of money. But it's more than enough for not doing anything, and it's obviously been enough for her to exist and raise her children because that's all she's been doing for 11 years.

This woman's new baby is due in October. She told me over the phone that the father lives somewhere in Boston. She doesn't know where, though, and apparently doesn't care, because the state will be supporting this child, too.

"I don't believe in abortion and I can't take the pill." These are the reasons she says she keeps on having babies.

"This thing isn't about babies and fathers. It's about the money that we're supposed to get on welfare. The only reason why I put myself in the paper is because we deserve that money for our kids," she told me.

Deserves. The word rankled. She actually believes she "deserves" what the state gives.

People make mistakes, they get in trouble, they lose their jobs, they have a run of bad luck, they have babies they can't afford and they need help. But there's no excuse for helping an able-bodied woman for 11 years. Because this isn't help. This is the perpetuation of dependency.

"Have you ever worked?" I asked her.

"Before I had kids," she said.

"Do the fathers of your children support them?"

"I get a $35 Social Security check from one of them."

And on it goes.