Why should my hard earned money go to those less fortunate?

[SteelCurtain]

Some general thoughts... 1. Prosecution of those found abusing the system through fraud, or falsification of eligibility.

It is already illegal to commit fraud and abuse the system. The problem is catching people. As you probably know, welfare offices are not the best funded, and there are usually hundreds or thousands of recipients per worker. If you'd like to push for better funding for welfare departments, that'd be a solution to this problem.

2. A much better screening process to evaluate and identify those in need. (I am all for offering substantial help to the less fortunate, especially those willing to give an honest effort)

See above. Hundreds/Thousands of applicants and very few employees to do thorough screening. Online forms filled out and decisions made in seconds. Has to be that way if you don't want a hulking bureaucracy.

3. Drug screening! No need to elaborate.

You know how conservatives are always saying that states are the laboratories of democracy? Well, several states have tried this. My state, Tennessee, tried this. Not only did they deny benefits to 30 families out of nearly 30,000 (that's .1%), it cost these states a bunch of money. Missouri spent over $350,000 to catch 48 people out of over 38,000 applicants.

Repeat this same deal in the 5 other states that have tried these (ultimately unconstitutional) laws, and you have a very ineffectual system that costs a lot of money.

And the numbers bear it out. People on welfare programs are not more likely to be drug abusers. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15787954 as well)

Also, when you punish the parents, you are punishing the most at-risk members of our society--the children. Should children in poverty be punished for the failings of their parents? Should they go without food or a house because their parents smoke weed or struggle with addiction?

The best and most effective measure against abuse in this light has been EBT cards. They keep cash out of people's hands and a restricted in which stores they can be used.

4. Some form of limit on benefits, either through time or amount of benefits. Though this is a tough one as every case is different.

Most states have review periods and limits on benefits, and federal law restricts TANF benefits to no more than 60 months. Unemployment benefits are shorter.

I work more hours than anyone I know. I enjoy helping others, and support social programs. We all will benefit from others prospering. That said, funds are limited. Those truly in need will benefit most by having these programs remain funded by weeding out the riff raff.

Weeding out the riff raff is fine, but ultimately a platonic ideal. There will always be people that game the system. The numbers, however, show that these people are rarer than it seems. We count the hits and not the misses. We look at the people we see doing the gaming and forget about the tens of thousands of people who need it and are doing it right.

One of the biggest drivers of welfare is low wages for full time workers. You want to get people off the dole? Support legislation for raising the minimum wage.