Welfare name game
Published: Thursday, April 18, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
In response to the letter “Rename it ‘Human Services'” (April 3 and TribLIVE.com) from five former Pennsylvania governors stating that since the state Department of Public Welfare does so much more than pass out welfare checks, it ought to be given a more precise name: They aren't calling for any reforms; they just want to change the name to the Department of Human Services.
If what we want is an accurate description, we should call it the Department for Giving Money to People Who Don't Work. Further, in the spirit of accuracy, let's split the department into the Bureau for People Who Can't Work and the Bureau for People Who Won't Work.
The first would take care of all the “can't works” — old folks, needy children, the mentally and physically handicapped, and people in a temporary jam. A society as wealthy as Pennsylvania's can easily afford to take care of every “can't work” in the state and to do it in style — except for the fact that we must also support the “won't works.”
It's unrealistic to pretend that politicians will ever cut the loot that is now being mooched off the rest of us by the “won't works,” so forget about welfare reform. The Bureau of Won't Works will continue to pay their rent, electric bills and gas bills and to provide them with pocket money for their bar tabs.
As a fan of strict linguistic accuracy, I'd like to know: What word best describes Ed Rendell?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Maybe problem is kids
- ObamaCare Obamination
- Menace unaddressed
- Failing patients & public
- Choosing judges II
- Eagles’ plight
- Promotion questionable
- Privatization disastrous
- Forcing their beliefs
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Valid comparison?