Both sides would agree on helping truly needy

Michael Callen, Morgantown
Two recent letters to the editor (DP-May 28 and Sunday) debating the work requirement for those on food stamps demonstrate how our political leaders have divided our country.
The first letter questioned why taxpayers should provide food stamps to people who are able to work. The second letter argues against the work requirement because too many people who are truly disabled fall through the cracks and are denied benefits.
The second letter’s author correctly noted that a country is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable people. This is a biblically based, morally correct observation, but the first letter author is also morally correct.
A biblical verse states that if a man won’t work he shouldn’t eat. Aside from the Bible, I suggest both the authors’ positions are reasonable and compassionate. They only appear to be in conflict because of the way our political leaders framed the issue and because of the incompetency of government.
To be blunt, it is not compassionate to make it easy for people to stay on the government’s welfare plantation. There are many able-bodied people who genuinely don’t understand how to be productive citizens.
My wife, who spent many years in social services, assisted many people who grew up in welfare families. They learned from their parents that you sign up for welfare and work under the table for cash to live. They never learned to work to support themselves like middle-class children learn.
The authors of both letters are simply talking past each other. They both would probably agree with a system that compassionately helps those who are truly in need, but sets high expectations for those who are able to be productive and should be cut off from the taxpayer’s dole if they fail to accept responsibility for themselves.