The Pros And Cons Of Monitoring Social Welfare

Monitoring Social Welfare The misuse of social welfare has become a really big problem. Many taxpayers in Minnesota are tired of people misusing welfare. Minnesota needs to monitor social welfare spending more because, it is increasing Minnesota's debt, people are misusing it, and people become dependent on it. One solution is to give people a twelve-month time limit so they can get back on their feet, but won't become dependent on it.

Social welfare is increasing the debt in Minnesota. In 2018 Minnesota is planning on spending $4.7 billion on welfare (Chantrill). So, if that money is being misused that is money we could be saving. Which leads to another argument that social welfare is being misused. Of the families receiving benefits fifty

So, to fix at least some if not all of these issues. The state could give out a twelve-month time limit to people that are just on welfare to get back on their own feet. That way people that are able to work will want to go out and find a job and won't become dependent on welfare.

Another solution could be that the state could hire more people to work for them. Then they could send those extra workers to recipient's homes to check in on people that are using welfare, and make sure they are using it for the right reasons. People have been selling some of the benefits they receive for cash and have been buying drugs or other unnecessary things (Elliot). This isn't the best solution though because to hire more people means more money is being spent to hire and then pay these new employees for this project.

A possible solution could also be that the state gives less money to the social welfare program overall. Less money to the program would be money saved and make a small decrease on Minnesota's debt. However, this is also not a good enough solution though because, then you have to decide what parts of the welfare system you are going to cut back on, and who to cut back on. Which would not be an easy decision because people are going to say that’s not right when they get less money than someone else that is in the same or even better condition than

Even though after a while, they could be okay on their own and not still relying on the state to take care of them. So, if the state of Minnesota gives people time limits, for twelve months just to give them some time to get back on their own feet again. Then, people that can work will be more likely to get back to working, and stop relying on the state to provide for them. Some people may ask though, how is the state going to choose who would get a time limit and who would not get one. Everyone would get a twelve-month time limit that are on social welfare because they are down on their luck. However, for people that are actually disabled or have a disability, they would not be included in this time limit nor would it affect their benefits. "Currently forty states have set some kind of time limits in effect that can take welfare benefits away from people. Of those forty states, seventeen of them have a limit of fewer than sixty months." (Bloom) Some people might argue that the time limit solution isn't very affective because having the same time limit solution, similar to the ones that have been put into place in those forty states, is too long of a time period and therefore, ineffective. That is because, most people are off of their welfare benefits, before the sixty months are up anyway. However, in the states that have tried some kind of time limit solution, have