New York is definitely making headlines. On August 11th, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Patterson announced that $140 million dollars from the federal government will be given out to low income families in an effort to help out with school supplies and all other back to school essentials. To make matters more interesting, billionaire (and apparent philanthropist) Geroge Soros, who claims to be once a recipient of charity himself, donated a hefty $35 million to the pot as well. The result? Needy families all over the state will receive one-time payments of $200 for each school-aged child between the ages of 3 and 17. (Do the math- if you have three kids that are like 5,7 and 9, you will receive $600). Over 850,000 public assistance debit cards have been credited with the no strings attached funds, which will expire in 90 days. It’s a sneaky little way to help out the economy (by giving revenue to those that will most likely spend it shopping- returning the money to the economy- rather than paying bills or saving it) but whatever works, right?

The back to school initiative in NY is part of President Obama’s giant stimulus plan- designed to create more jobs and make major reforms in education all over the country. Of course, it has been heavily criticized (mostly by republicans but we all say that coming) however, maybe the criticism comes with good reason. With already so much help going to the ‘needy’ of not only in New York State, but all over the country, is this recent government payout (dare I say it) a little unfair?

Yes, it’s great that the government is willing to help out families in “need”, but what defines need? What SHOULD define the word “Need”? And who should be eligible? Just because you have a job does not mean you are financially able to support yourself or your family on your own- regardless of how much you make or how many kids you have. And is everyone forgetting: WHAT IF YOU DON’T HAVE CHILDREN? Should you be ostracized from government funding if you are without child?

I’m not trying to knock the giving part- that definitely can be a positive thing (sometimes). What I do feel needs to be replaced is the criteria to receive some of these federal kickbacks- not to mention the form of payment. (I mean, do you seriously think all of that cash went to pencils and books? Let’s be real here). Although it’s almost impossible to help everyone, more should be done to at least try to reach out more to folks other than the “textbook” (and often stereotypical) assistance case- a lot more people could have used that free $200 payout.

But when do these payouts become too much? Although some say the government doesn’t do enough for those that need help, some argue that too much is being done- and can possibly be deterring people from trying to get jobs. Should a cut-off limit be implemented? And who should receive it? As some of these questions are definitely on the minds of some New Yorkers (as well as those around the country as well as the world) we’re just going to have to wait and see what else President Obama has in store for us in terms of this so-called reform movement.

Food for thought: At least the government didn’t use the money to rename another bridge.

-Rachel McCain