According to the Detroit Free Press, the bill would end benefits for 12,600 families across the state. Although the bill only would eliminate cash assistance for welfare recipients, leaving food assistance and health care intact, all this means is that families are on welfare while they’re on the street.

In this economic climate, it’s more likely the majority of individuals on welfare merely are unemployed, not so-called “welfare queens.” Falling into the trap of characterizing welfare recipients as lazy and shiftless does no justice to those who are unable to find work in this state.

According to the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Ken Horn, R-Frankenmuth, there are “jobs aplenty” available in Michigan. Are there really? In a state where the unemployment rate continues to hover around 10 percent? Will things be so much better in the state of Michigan on Oct. 1 (the date the bill is scheduled to go into effect) that all these people coming off welfare will be able to find jobs?
No, for a variety of reasons.

While the economic climate of Michigan is getting better, it’s doing so at an extremely slow rate. The unemployment rate was 12.8 percent in May 2010, and it’s 10.3 percent in May 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. With unemployment still in double digits, employers either are not looking to hire unemployed people or have learned to do the same amount of work with fewer employees.

The unemployed don’t always have the skills employers are looking for, and it takes time and money for them to acquire said skills. Although the bill does streamline Michigan’s Jobs, Education, and Training program, it doesn’t streamline the time it takes for people to learn new skills, it just makes it easier for them to do so.

This bill also has literal, violent potential. When people can’t find work and can’t get welfare, they’ll turn to illegal methods (robberies, selling/producing drugs, prostitution, etc.) to take care of themselves or their loved ones. They have to live, after all. Not all welfare recipients will do this, but enough will for crime rates to go up, causing avoidable damage across the state. At a time when public services are being stretched thinner than ever, do we really want to engineer more criminals?

I want to save the state money. What I don’t want is for that money to come from the people who can least afford it. The state already took away the Earned Income Tax Credit, which was a boon to poorer individuals who actually were working. So what can be done to save the state money and still address the personal side of the bill?

I propose easing people off the old welfare limits. If you’ve been on welfare for 36 months or more, you’re grandfathered in under the old laws and still get up to 60 months of welfare. If you’ve been on welfare for 35 months or less, you’re under the proposed legislation and receive up to 48 months of welfare.

Trying not to rip the welfare Band-Aid off immediately gives individuals and families at least another year to get their house in order while still saving the state money in the future. Although that isn’t an ideal plan for those on welfare (I’m sure that ideally, those on welfare wouldn’t want any changes in legislation), it does what it can for those unemployed while still saving the state money in 13 months.

When looking to save money statewide, sometimes it’s advisable to cut down on government. But the people who lean on the government the most shouldn’t have the rug pulled out from under them.

Lazarus Jackson is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at jacks920@msu.edu.