arguments for spending more of the American budget on Education rather than Welfare

Essay by Anonymous UserHigh School, 12th gradeA+, February 1997

download word file, 2 pages 4.6

Downloaded 81 times

In the recent February article of the Los Angeles

Times, Clinton has announced to go on with a plan to help

people of welfare. Clinton challenged corporate bosses five

months ago to take people in from welfare and trained them.

One of the main contributors of the project is a chief

executive officer of the Monsanto Ca., the nation's fourth

largest chemical maker. Clinton singled out the Monsanto

company and other companies for helping out welfare workers.

Monsanto has hired five recipient and found almost twenty

more jobs for others.

Under the new laws of the welfare reforms, the able

body workers should work within the two years of recieving

benefits. Some of the good things out of this plan is that

by the year 2005, only 14% of jobs will be done by more of

the dependent poor people. This is bad because 46% of aid

recipients had not completed high school or earned a General

Equivalency Diploma.

The ability to absorb more welfare

recipients is limited by the high- technology chemical,

agricultural, fiber and pharmaceutical development and

manufacturing. These workers would have limited skills.

Monsanto is highly protecteive of the privacy of its special

new hires. The new employees are hired to fill a variety of

clerical and light general- labor positions. They will not

be identified as the company's welfare-to-work initiative.

The possible short-term effect this would have on

society is that people, on welfare, would be able to work

and get paid for it. This will allow them to be able to

build finance of their own that they will be able to help

them with their lives. The long-term effect, though it

seemed good for the people, would be bad for everyone else

who weren't on welfare. This would be because the people

working off...