The Other Side of Families First

I am writing in response to your article "Welfare Checks and Balances" in the January 22-29 issue [Vol. 8, No. 3]. I am a case manager at DHS and would like the opportunity to speak as someone on the "other side."

I will concede that Families First is far from perfect, and there are several aspects that, in my personal opinion, need immediate adjustment. Any participant who finds fault with the program may very well have a legitimate argument.

This aside, there are some important things that past, present, and potential participants should consider about Families First:

1) Any program that is broad-based in its implementation can only be but so effective in its benefit to those it targets. Individuals have to make up the difference between government policy and specific need. Personal initiative should fill in the cracks that large scale programs leave behind. The government does its part, and the individual does his or hers.

2) In the months following the implementation of Families First, participants' anger, in the office and in the media, has often been directed at case managers. Your article also reflected this sentiment. What some participants don't seem to understand is that case managers only carry out what has already been decided by politicians. Participants themselves either voted for or against these very politicians or abdicated themselves from the election process altogether. In reality, case managers have no more control over policy than do participants. Rich or poor, all are able to vote. Participants can even register at the DHS office when they apply for benefits. Their frustration and complaints about the program's faults would be more accurately directed towards those elected officials, who are the only ones in a position to make changes.

3) The transitional benefits consistently bashed by participants in your article and elsewhere were designed with two things in mind: to construct a limited time period that participants can draw on the government (our tax dollars) and to provide a gradual transition into life off welfare. Life off welfare includes shelter costs, child care payments, transportation costs, etc. Nobody ever talks about the millions of dollars being spent to help with child care and healthcare coverage even after the welfare check has been terminated. Somehow that's not enough. Would it be better to continue to carry participants for the 18 months and then completely cut everything off? I tend to think many would have problems with that approach too. I am constantly surprised at those who don't understand why income from their newly acquired jobs affects their benefits. There has to be some basis for determining eligibility for government assistance, and why should participants' income be considered any different than that of a new applicant?

Granted, things may be very hard with a low-wage job and children to provide for. But the government is not constitutionally required nor should it be expected to make sure everyone in America lives comfortably. It is expected to provide assistance for survival, which Families First more than covers. Participants should be more realistic about what the government does or doesn't 'owe' them.

I am sympathetic to working poor and those below the poverty level in our state. Life is not what they see on TV and often has little hope of becoming that. I personally have difficulty even imaging being a single parent. But the government should not be the sole provider of a lifestyle beyond the level it takes to survive humanely. I wonder, too, how hard Mr. Mayfield (sic) worked to find even one participant who is grateful for the opportunities Families First has offered them. I talk to them often and am curious as to why the Metro Pulse would print such an extensive article without getting both sides.

Amy Vanderpool
Andersonville

Missionaries' Position

This is in response to your "Ear to the Ground" story concerning the Christian board game in your Jan. 29 issue. I am offended by your simplistic, stereotypical implication that Christian missionaries are narrow-minded witch hunters.

The Christian missionaries that I know are very intelligent, loving, respectful people who have often left the comforts and affluence that most of us take for granted to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. Without exaggeration, many of these missionaries literally put their lives in danger by attempting to share the Gospel of Jesus in a foreign country. You have taken their commitment and passion and attempted to reduce it to a punchline.

Missionaries are trained to respect the culture and people of the area in which they will be living. Your portrayal of them in your column is erroneous and misleading.

Lary Peters
Knoxville