Almost no one likes our public welfare programs, not even the people who get welfare support. Take the case of Louisa (name changed), a single mother with two young children. Louisa worked in a local area business for 30 hours a week, at $11 per hour, after coming off welfare.

The business did not provide health care coverage because of her part time job. Louisa got free health care insurance for her young children from the state.  Her employer offered Louisa a small raise, but she turned down the extra money. If she had accepted the raise, her new income level would have made her ineligible for the health insurance her children received. These government regulations affected this woman’s job; they acted as a disincentive, instead of an opportunity for the single mother.

Jason, a friend in a neighboring state, is on welfare because of a health disability. He cannot work full time. He works one day a week. Because he has very high level skills, the organization he works for would like to give him much higher compensation than he earns now. But if he accepts the increase, he would lose his federal benefits.

Why does this happen, you may wonder? It is basically because when government draws up a rule, it must enforce it for everyone. Only people whose income falls below a certain level (the poverty level, or some agreed-upon percent above it) get covered. This means that if you earn more, you lose your benefits.

When welfare was first started, during the Depression, it was intended to be short term help, for the “deserving poor.” They were workers who were temporarily unemployed, or widows. Under the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, many people argued that welfare should be an entitlement. Lots of single mothers then went on welfare long term.

Under welfare programs, the federal government extends benefits to impoverished citizens for them to get, and maintain, a decent standard of living, and to promote the well being of poor Americans who need to improve their lives.

Welfare comes in many forms of financial subsidies, public housing and health services to the poor, elderly and disabled, including single mothers with children. Both liberals and conservatives have mixed emotions about what is considered welfare. On the other hand, most politicians think of welfare as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), where assistance of cash is provided to single parents with children.

Welfare programs for poor and impoverished Americans include Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps and benefits for the poor, disabled and elderly. People must apply for these benefits, which are subject to income limitations and time limits.

Our country reformed welfare during the Clinton administration, requiring people to get off the welfare rolls and into jobs. Under Clinton, TANF set a five-year limit for cash assistance and childcare to encourage people to get off welfare. Later, a work program was added to TANF and together, the programs provided $5.5 billion more in childcare funds. The program worked successfully, reduced the number of people on welfare rolls and resulted in employee incomes increasing over 35 percent.

While welfare rolls dropped, the federal government’s grants to each of the states continued at approximately $16 billion annually. Oddly enough, most states used the excess monies for other state shortfalls, rather than putting those surpluses into reserve accounts, to use in tough economic times like today.

The rigidity of government regulations makes it difficult for single mothers with young children to improve their lives, to build a more decent standard of living. Many children in low income families live in crowded, unsafe areas, with limited access to good educational facilities or healthcare. Many go hungry. Their single mothers are generally under heavy stress, which can adversely affect the children’s emotional well being.

While welfare standards need to be uniform in regulations, some leeway needs to be designed to allow people to move up, without forfeiting all their health or other benefits. First, we need to reassess individual hardship cases in each state, instead of keeping to the letter of the regulations. Exceptions to the rule should be given to worthy situations that necessitate a more nuanced approach, allowing for a sliding scale of benefit reduction, as former welfare users make successful transitions to the world of work.

Both the individual needing help and the general public would benefit from such an approach. It would help individuals move off welfare successfully, and it would reduce the cost of providing welfare support.

— Bernard Featherman is a business columnist and past president of the Biddeford-Saco Chamber of Commerce. He can be reached by e-mail: bernard@featherman.com.