I agree. But people don't spend a lot of time on "how it is run", they spend the time on why people shouldn't have it and how to minimize it's use, regardless of need.
I always have an issue with stricter work requirements because the people imposing the stricter requirements don't have the ability to guarantee access to work. They don't control the market place. And the areas most likely to need those programs - rural areas and inner cities are already impoverished because employers don't want to go there. So it's a tone deaf approach.
Gov: "You need a job to qualify for benefits."
Person: "Great, I want a job. Where can I get one?"
Gov: "Just look for one."
Person: "I am but I only have a high school education."
Gov: "Well, you shouldn't have had kids then."
Person: "Uhm...how does that help me get a job?"
Gov: "It doesn't but that's your fault."
Person: "Ok, sure. But I still need a job and my government provided education is inadequate for any work that gets me off welfare."
Gov: "Move."
Person: "Ok, sure. But the type of work that I qualify for isn't going to pay for moving expenses."
I could go on but my point is that the issues of low income in this country that lead to low income and use of social service programs are intrinsic to how our economy has evolved. And how the programs are run doesn't work if those elements aren't acknowledged in an honest manner.
It's like when they tell some single mom to go get a job. Well, to go to an interview, she needs someone to watch her kid, transportation fare, etc. That costs money. She needs a job to get the money. So, it's a Catch-22 for her. There are too many issues like that running around.
