I. Cross Examination 1 II.

First Constructive Speech Welfare programs stimulate the economy and help impoverished people to get back to work and therefore should not be abolished. In her September 21st 2012 New York Times opinion-editorial, Larkin Warren tells her story of living with welfare support, and how she came out of it successfully. Warren was struggling to support herself and her child 40 years ago while she was attending University of New Hampshire which she had recently been readmitted to. Her debts accumulated from school and as the result of living as a single mother so much that she applied for welfare. It was a hard choose for her to make, as it is with many people, since it goes against many peoples principles of self-reliance. Welfare was the only option she had left, and it turned out to be a lifesaver for her. Warren was finally able to properly feed her young child, and continue getting an education, and now looks back on her experience with welfare proudly. It was not as easy for Warren as it may sound, however. Welfare can only help so much, and Warren worked hard to get through those years while she was on welfare. She worked her way out of it and was finally able to discontinue her welfare aid after getting a successful job in the English department of her college. Warren was able to use welfare as a tool to get her out of poverty and become successful. This is not a story specific to only one person, however. In her op-ed she writes, I was not an exception in that little section 8 neighborhood. Among those welfare moms were future teachers, nurses, scientists, business owners, health and safety advocates. Warren i now married, and both she and her husband are paying their share of taxes. Her son is as well. Warren and her son are giving back to the country that helped them out. Warren was relying on welfare support 40 years ago, when the requirements and qualifications were much more relaxed. Since then, there have been many changes made to the welfare system. It has been made much harder for impoverished people to qualify for welfare. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, block grant was established. TANF has given the states control over their welfare programs. Rebecca M. Blank addresses the purpose of these programs in her September 2001 article for Brookings, writing, These new work-oriented welfare programs were designed to move recipients (primarily single mothers) into employment as quickly as possible. Because of the way that welfare programs are set up in the United States today, people are able to get the help they need and be quickly prepared to go into work, and give back to the country that assisted them. Larkin Warrens story and Rebecca M. Blanks article prove that welfare allows for a better future for the recipients of it and is an important stepping stone for the impoverished to be integrated back into Americas society and economic system. Although welfare does make up a large percentage of our federal budget, the money is not completely lost. Representative Steny Hoyer is paraphrased in Brian Koeings article for the New American, suggesting that the Keynesian economic theory, which states that during recessions the economy profits from increased spending by the people, is being displayed through the welfare system. People receiving welfare begin to get money in their pockets,and are able to spend it, stimulating the economy. In the same article, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is quoted saying, I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. The dollar that one welfare recipient spends at the grocery store can help pay others, and example of the ripple effect according to economist Mark Zandi. It helps pay the salaries of the grocery clerks, truckers, and farmers who grew the crops. Money needs to be spent by the people in order for the economy to prosper, and for many people, the only way they are able to spend

money is with the support of welfare. Without welfare, it would be exceedingly difficult for impoverished, hard-working people, like Larkin Warren, to get themselves back into work. By receiving money from the government they get the chance to pay off debts, and through programs like TANF are helped in finding a workplace. They can then spend more money than were able to before, and are therefore helping to stimulate the economy. IV. Cross Examination 2 V. Second Constructive Speech (by Zewde Ingram) According to the Department of Commerce, abolishing welfare would impact the 12,800,000 Americans that rely on it to get by each day. It would impact the 46,700,000 Americans who rely on food stamps. These mothers, fathers, grandparents and children make up 4.1% of our nations population. They are not to be overlooked, and the adverse effects of cutting welfare would devastate these Americans lives. Welfare has continuous ly proven to reduce poverty. In the Heritage Foundations 2006 Statement before the House of Representatives, it was found 1.6 million fewer children lived in poverty than in 1995 due to welfare reform that took place in 1996 under the Clinton administration. Also, welfare caseloads and applications decreased by almost half from 4.3 million to 1.89 million. The employment rate of disadvantaged single mothers, the highest recipients of welfare, increased considerably from a sole 50%. Eliminating welfare would harm millions of American families. As Larkin Warren, who benefited from welfare as a single mom, says, Wouldnt any decent person throw a rope to a drowning person? Wouldnt any drowning person take it?. It is uncivil to eliminate welfare and would pr event further progress on our nations war against poverty. In America, the most common recipient of welfare are children in deep poverty. According to an article by Jon Healy in the LA times, 80% of people receiving welfare in California are impoverished kids. Welfare has also led to a more productive workforce. As reported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, after the passage of TANF in 1996, it was mandatory for states to identify substance abuse as a barrier to employment and to introduce methods to treat substance abuse. Since then, Drug screening has been issued and Welfare to Work programs have been instituted to rehabilitate drug and alcohol abusers and prepare for the workplace. In GAIN, a program run by Nevada Country for welfare recipients with substance abuse, its was found that after 6 months of participation, 70% of attendees were employed. A national program, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University also known as CASAWORKS, showed that after the session ended 75% of participants were abstinent from alcohol and drugs and 40% were employed. Welfare influenced programs have helped not only substance abusers, but the mentally ill integrate into society as functional members of Americas workforce. The Department of Health and Human services found that 28% of welfare recipients have a mental illness. Welfare recipients the mental illness have more difficulties in finding employment and are more likely to receive public assistance. People with serious mental illness have unemployment rates that soar to over 70%. Simillarly, the Welfare to Work programs for substance abusers, have helped the mentally ill leave welfare and hold a part time or full time job. For example, in New Jerseys supported employment program,65% of the 2,000 participants were full or part time employed after ten years. As our workforce grows, so does the number of consumers as well as increased demand that will benefit our nations businesses. In Peter Edelmans 2012 New York Times Op-Ed, Poverty In America: Why Cant We End it? , he writes From Social Security to food stamps to the earnedincome tax credit and on and on, we have enacted programs that now keep 40 million

people out of poverty. Poverty would be nearly double what it is now without these measures, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Welfare has improved the hard circumstances for millions of hard working Americans, by eradicating welfare, we would be hurting America both socially and economically. VI Answer Cross Examination Rebuttals: --it is not easy to get a job [unemployment stats]- According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor is currently at 7.3% --As Hope Yen says in her Sept 17, 2013 article for USA Today, Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives. --However, recent college graduates with a Bachelors degree or better are still bearing the greatest unemployment risk, with unemployment rates ranging from a low of 4.8 percent to a high of 14.7 percent depending on their major.(according to a booklet written by Anthony P. Carnevale, published by the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute) (http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/HardTimes.2013.2.pdf) -- according to the Economic Policy Institute. A quarter pay below the poverty line for a family of four, less than $23,000 annually (NYT Op-Ed Edleman) --a third of the population have annual incomes below twice the poverty line, less than $38,000 for a family of three (NYT Op-ed Edleman) The government isnt just handing out money, since so many people cant qualify for welfare. --six million people have no income other than food stamps. Food stamps provide an income at a third of the poverty line, close to $6,300 for a family of three. -- The first thing needed if were to get people out of poverty is more jobs that pay decent wages. There arent enough of these in our current economy. - Peter Edleman NYT -according to Statistic Brain, which took statistics directly from the 2010 federal budget, the U.S. government spent $571 billion dollars on unemployment and welfare, a lesser expense than the $663.7 billion dollars it spent on defense ($92.7 billion less) (possible answer to cross-ex) one reason why it there are more families that have more than 2 people relying on welfare is b/c the more people you have, the easier it is to get welfare, but that does not directly mean that people are having more children to get welfare, that is just who is getting it in the first place