reaction to sharon hayes (welfare)

This article discusses the reforms to the welfare program in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. I agree with Hayes that there are both positive and negative things that have come out of it. I think that it was a good idea, in theory, to try to emphasize the need for welfare recipients to become financially independent, but the execution of this plan is much more difficult. Reform was definitely needed in the welfare program, though. Once on welfare, recipients had no real incentives to go out and get a job, so they became increasingly dependent on welfare checks. This was extremely expensive for American taxpayers, and it was not really helping people because they were completely dependent on welfare for survival. Under the Personal Responsibility Act, the goal is to put pressure on recipients to get a job and give them the training they need in order to do so. The main problem with this is that the majority of recipients are not lacking the motivation to get a job, but the circumstances in which they live keep them from doing so. Also, most of the jobs available to them provide very low wages which cannot even cover their basic needs a lot of the time, especially when trying to support a family. Furthermore, this reform is even less effective at a time when the economy is doing poorly, as it is now. In our present economic situation, it is even more difficult to find work, so recipients will become increasingly desperate to find work. 

Do elections contribute to good government?

Elections not only contribute to good government, they are the backbone of democracy. Voting allows us to settle our differences without resorting to violence. By voting, there is a universal agreement that the loser will yield and consent to whatever policy or official that has been voted on. In a two party system, this is extremely important. Without elections, there would be constant chaos and bloodshed happening between them in their struggle for power. Furthermore, elections are good for government because they are a resistance to monarchies. The main problem with monarchies is that the ruler is often not the best person suited for the position and he does not necessarily represent the will of the people. Elections were put in place to legitimize a politician's rule. People can alter who they are ruled by though voting, and they choose who will represent them best so their interests will be realized. Also, unlike a monarchy, elections create competition among public officials. This causes politicians to make all of their decisions based on what their constituents want so that they will be re-elected. Officials can also be held accountable for their actions, so they are careful not to make any mistakes. There are several aspects of elections that are detrimental to government, though. Due to the fact that America uses a two party system, politicians from both parties can be elected. Therefore, elections can lead to a divided government in which it is almost impossible to get anything accomplished because both sides cancel each other out. Another negative aspect of elections is term limits, especially for the president. Oftentimes, a president has many policy goals, but with only 4 to 8 years in office, it is very difficult to see these goals realized. Overall, though, elections are vital to good government despite a few problems with them.