Under our current program (reformed during the Bush Administration), all sides come out winners; taxpayers, society and children. By requiring welfare mothers to work as a condition of receiving aid, welfare costs and dependence are reduced (all spelled out). All case histories (in the past 15-years; in all current programs) show that prolonged welfare dependence have reduced and so has employment increased with those receiving aid. The poverty level has dropped as well, but one would have to study a state-by-state count along with each program to better understand the bottom line (too confusing for my brain ). Though all the published reasearh available to us, both on a Fed/State contribution levels, shows that prolonged dependence itself is harmful to children and by the reform reducing welfare use and having working adults in the household have served as role models for children, had greatly reduced the "multi-generational" aspect we remember from years past... and are all documented if one has the time to gather facts... will exhibit the improved prospects for success that has followed later in life. The increase in $$$ alocation (State/Fed) should not be confused with population-growth numbers.

As with any government program; the writ vs. the enforcement are two different matters as have been seen recently...

I expect to see more enforcement come into play as a result of recent events (not mentioning [agricultural] region(s)/states).

Though the "phones" can be a piss-poor program if not carried out with, the cost is so little compared to what all is going down around us as we speak.

Your headline does sell newpapers, but once that chimp in Smitty's posts opens the paper to read the facts...