by Jerry Agar

A State Journal-Register article on parenting of "ungrateful teenagers" advises, "Parents should require teenagers to make genuine, meaningful contributions to the family, and set consequences if they don’t.  Put that 16-year-old in charge of making dinner one night a week, and don’t bail him out if he doesn’t do it. Or tell him if he wants a ride to his game, he has to walk the dog."

The advice is given in the belief that parents love their children and want the best for them.  We want them to grow up to be responsible people, and a little tough love is good for them in the long run.

Why don't we do more of that with our social welfare system?

Using food stamps to feed the family?  We want your family fed.  That is fair enough.  But you have to have your card stamped once a month as a volunteer at a soup or prison kitchen.  Help feed someone else.

Getting a rent subsidy?  You're on the clean-up detail every second Saturday at a city park.

Getting subsidies because you are 17 years old and have three children?  You have to work one day a week at the day care for every child you have.  You can bring your kids, but you have to actually work, or you get fired and lose your benefits.  Word will get around to other young women and girls before they have more babies.  That may not stop kids from having the first baby, but it may make them think a lot harder if there is more of a consequence, rather than  the current system of essentially paying kids to have kids.

Some people are against these ideas because it threatens to replace some unionized civil servants.  To me that seems like a win/win.

Good people who are temporarily down on their luck will understand this idea and will gratefully cooperate while getting back on their feet.  Identifying those who don't want to contribute to their own welfare would be a useful thing to have come out of the program.

Tough love.  You'll thank us later.