Roberta M.H. wrote an opinion piece to the Zip06, a local news and community site for Southeastern Connecticut. In it, she praises single mothers and laments how the careless sexual practices of “welfare moms” burden the backs of taxpayers.
Roberta makes a distinction between ‘single moms’ and ‘welfare moms’. The former connotes a strength of character and willingness to care for children on a single woman’s salary, while the latter connotes an irresponsible woman who does not know how to control herself and ends up depending on the state to raise her children for her.
Despite Roberta lashing out and scolding welfare moms for their decisions, you just have to stop and think – why not just cut off these irresponsible mothers from welfare altogether? Why not let them feel the full brunt of their actions instead of have the taxpayers shoulder the burden of raising their kids for them?
Three words: Long. Term. Investment.
Think about it. What would indeed happen to the kids that grow up without any form of assistance? They can’t expect their own “irresponsible” mother to take care of them, and she couldn’t even if she wanted to. Kids left on their own grow up to become adults that live outside the scope of society. They grew up in a dog-eat-dog world, so why should they care about the laws other people follow?
Now these kids won’t all grow up to be gangbangers or petty thieves, but this is a very real possibility for children that don’t receive welfare. Never mind if the mom gets a free ride on the taxpayers backs – it’s the child that matters. Even if the “irresponsible” and “promiscuous” mom gets away scot-free, it is still important that the children get a shot at decent education and a helping hand up in life.
So people like Roberta can point fingers to welfare moms all they like, but the system is there to ensure that all of America’s children have a chance for a better life – whether they were raised by “responsible” single moms or “irresponsible” welfare moms.