Tuesday, April 29, 2008 Cabaero: Living on the dole By Nini B. Cabaero Beyond 30
ONE of the activities of government to address the food shortage is to give cash to poor families so they will be able to buy their necessities.
What is meant to be an act of charity by the government is being viewed, however, as a move that would do more damage to the poor.
The move is one that easily raises suspicions, given the government’s history of handing out cash for something in return. If the government wanted to help the poor in a charitable way, there is the option of immediate assistance as in during a natural or man-made calamity.
Government could simply hand over food and other necessities to the poorest families or could link the program to a bigger anti-poverty campaign. Living on the dole is a situation that the government cannot encourage.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo promised in early April a stipend of P1,400 a month per poor family to tide them over in this time of rising food prices. The stipend or subsidy will be P500 per household and an additional P900 for a maximum of three children. The social welfare department said beneficiaries would be about 300,000 poor families in the 20 poorest provinces of the country.
The cash aid would allow the beneficiary-families to have food on the table so their children would not have to stop their schooling to help the family earn. The program will run from 2008 to 2013 and would require a budget of P420 million a month or P5.04 billion a year, the Department of Social Welfare and Development said.
Instead of being happy with this charitable gesture by the government, some Church officials have criticized the program as something that would hurt more the poor families. Abra Bishop Leopoldo Jaucian told President Arroyo last weekend the financial aid would encourage the poor to be dependent on government. “The government should think of a long-term solution,” the bishop said.
Caritas Manila executive director Fr. Anton Pascual also opposed the program saying it was actually “anti-poor.” Pascual said, “The idea to give pure dole-out money will give the poor no dignity, will breed a culture of dependency and (would be) anti-development. It will not effectively eradicate poverty.” Instead of handing out money to the poor, the program could make the poor earn it somehow even with the littlest of efforts, he added.
He suggested the poor families earn the subsidy by working as street sweepers, canal cleaners, tree planters or as garbage collectors. They could be paid to attend seminars on livelihood, skills training, responsible parenthood and micro-entrepreneurship. “This way they would have to earn their keep. There is dignity there,” Pascual said.
With the way government dole-outs have been handled, there is always the danger that the giving of cash would be linked to someone’s political agenda or survival. The picture of governors leaving the presidential palace with bags of cash at the height of a graft inquiry on Arroyo is still fresh in the public’s mind.
Immediate help can be given to the neediest of families. Cash doleouts, however, should be last in the list of government options, given the political connotation that would be attached to it and the impact it would have on the poor.
