Some people game “the system.” Someone, somewhere collects unemployment or food stamps or surplus cheese that doesn’t deserve it. Now and again, one of them gets caught, their story goes viral, and an entire welfare program is condemned. The victims: The people who really need help.

We have three choices: Stop all government programs that aid the down-and-outs, do a better job of enforcement, or ignore the petty theft and accept some waste.

Stop all federal programs

Beyond the humanitarian side of giving, there’s a pragmatic, business reason to support the less fortunate: It keeps them out of the way. That’s cold, but too often the discussion focuses on taxpayer dollars wasted and miscreants who commit fraud – and usually both.

Social Security was, in large part, our reaction after we discovered an army of impoverished older adults living on the street. It’s one thing to discuss if it’s fair; it’s another to step over someone’s mother when buying a Slurpee at 7-11. It’s not just about giving the poor a small apartment, heat and basic food. It’s about us too. It keeps sidewalks clear and businesses operating.

Forget the charity element: Society needs this as much as it needs firefighters, police and nurses.

We also need to keep a dissatisfied mob from forming. Russians’ march for bread led to a revolution, and America’s Poor People’s Campaign in 1968 shows that a dissatisfied lower class impacts America too.

More enforcement

This sounds good, and it makes sense to spend 1¢ on enforcement if it saves $1 in illegal welfare payments. The problem: How do we that?

I paid little for my first house – a great deal – but it had a tenant with a lease that we had to wait out: An unwed mother of four who relied on government assistance to pay the rent. Her share of the monthly rent was about $30 in today’s dollars, while tax dollars picked up about $800.

She also had a boyfriend who lived in the house – but not officially. His income did not count in the calculation for government rent subsidies but should have. The boyfriend’s clothes were in the bedroom bureau with his car parked out back.

I asked a friend in social services how this happens. It’s not fair.

“How do we prove he lives there?” she asked. Boyfriends sometimes stay for days, so “It looks as if he’s sleeping there all the time” doesn’t prove anything. You could try to catch them by posting someone outside the front door for a few weeks documenting all comings and goings, but you’d need someone by the back door too. And what if you have two weeks of documentation but the couple still denies it – comes up with an excuse for the longer-than-usual visit?

Lying works and some people happily lie.

This two-week surveillance would cost more than 1¢ for every dollar saved. The cost would probably be more than any savings. If so, is the cost justified? And even if it is, this is America: Do we approve that level of privacy intrusion? For every welfare criminal caught, at least 10 innocent people would have the Gestapo stationed outside their home.

Accept some level of waste

Absent a complete cancellation of Social Security or welfare, accept that a few people will scam the system. It’s like a factory that accepts some waste as a cost of doing business.

How much waste is acceptable with welfare? For some people, it’s zero. For others, it’s a bit more – but few people want to accept percentages above, say, 5 percent. And since it’s already difficult to prove that a boyfriend shacks up illegally in a welfare-funded home, it’s safe to assume that waste could be as high as 30 percent without knowing it. That’s scary.

But at-risk families can’t suffer, and society can’t afford the psychological impact of forgotten children. The only sensible answer is to boost enforcement of social programs – not cut them – and accept that we can’t help a struggling two-year-old without some taxpayer waste.

The amount of acceptable waste is a line-item detail. But to pull back and throw people on the street – kids and senior citizens? America can’t afford that.

© 2015 Smithtakes.com