Societies for years have preached the theory of individual responsibility as the righteous route for it citizens to pursuit. The worth of a society is often based on the monetary network of individuals. Moreover, in the United States this is the norm to focus on individual responsibility. However, every society is faced with the conflict of poverty that requires some type of social welfare policy. Poverty is not a stranger to the United States and therefore it created program such as welfare to assist the poor. The welfare system has evolved over the years sometime for the good and others for the bad. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. This law changes the way welfare function. This paper will examine welfare to work programs in the United States.
I. Structural components
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 also known as (Welfare to work) objective was to end welfare. It further aimed at placing limits on benefits and to help improve on the collection of child support. President Clinton was acting on a promise he made during the Democratic National Convention to reform welfare by creating million of jobs. The Welfare reform Act purpose was to create jobs by incentivizing employers to hire welfare recipients by giving them tax credits.
“The critics of this law believed that it harmed the poor by reducing or ending benefits and requiring the recipients to find work within a two year or perform community service”(sourcewatch.org). Through this new law the states governments were eligible to receive block grant from the Federal government. The funds would be administered by the states to welf...
... middle of paper ...
...tive citizen and contribute to the revenues of the government. Moreover, the latent consequences of welfare to work are positive for society. Welfare to work program meet the test of social justice in that it give the recipients an opportunity to improve their life.
References
(No Author) 1996 Personal Responsibility &Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Retrieved April 2, 2011, from http://www.sourcewatch.org
Dolgoff, R. & Feldstein. (2009). Understanding social welfare: A search for social justice. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Stryker, R., & Wald, P. (2009). Redefining Compassion to Reform Welfare: How Supporters of 1990s US Federal Welfare Reform Aimed for the Moral High Ground. Social Politics, 16(4), 519. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1921506111).
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
Hays found that initially most welfare workers were optimistic and even excited about the changes. Most workers felt that the Act represented real progress and allowed for positive changes which would positively impact the lives of their clients. Hays spoke to one welfare who said that welfare reform “offered the training and services necessary to 'make our clients' lives better, to make them better mothers, to make them more productive.'” But as she was soon to find out, welfare reform, while it did have a positive impact on the lives of some welfare clients, made the lives of most clients more difficult, not to mention the stress that it caused for the welfare workers who had to deal with the often confusing and illogical new rules.
Dolgoff, R. & Feldstein, D. (2003). Understanding social welfare (7th ed). New York, Allen & Bacon
In the summer of 1996, Congress finally passed and the President signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996", transforming the nation's welfare system. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act sets the stage for ongoing reconstruction of welfare systems on a state-by-state basis. The combined programs will increase from nearly $100 billion this year to $130 billion per year in 6 years. Programs included are for food stamps, SSI, child nutrition, foster care, the bloss grant program for child- care, and the new block grant to take the place of AFDC. All of those programs will seek $700 billion over the next 6 years, from the taxpayers of America. This program in its reformed mode will cost $55 billion less than it was assumed to cost if there were no changes and the entitlements were left alone. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today.
In 1988, Congress enacted the Family Support Act that combined an emphasis on education and training to help move Welfare recipients into jobs. As a governor, Bill Clinton was a strong proponent of the Family Support Act, but he campaigned for the presidency on a pledge to "end welfare as we know it." In 1994, the Work and Responsibility Act was passed. It also put more money into education and training for welfare recipients but had a limit of two years. This act was phased in slowly, starting with recipients that were born after 1971. “This phase-in had three advantages: it sent a message of personal responsibility to the younger generation; it gave states time to expand their ability to provide the necessary training and work opportunities;
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
One way Michael Burke, in his article “Welfare reform 20 years later: what worked, what didn’t,” effectively argues the importance of knowing the state of which the welfare reform is currently in is by appealing to logos and pathos. Throughout the article, Burke provides statistics and history on what welfare is and why it was created in the first place. He states “In establishing the program, the federal government, for the first time, took responsibility for helping children with a parent who was dead, gone or otherwise incapacitated...from 1996 to 2000, employment rates among never-married mothers shot from 63% to 76%, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).” By providing statistics he was able to provide
As of 1996, state and local governments were asked to assist many people in gaining their independence after the reform was enacted. (“Welfare Reform”) It is vital to the economy of the United States citizens to have the ability to support themselves as well as their families with no help from the government. Protecting all children and strengthening families were important parts of the reform measure. (“Welfare Reform”) The Welfare Reform Agenda of 2003 was built on the bases of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The goals of 2003 were to assist families in achieving financial independence from the government. (“Welfare Reform”) The 2003 agenda imposed a lifetime of 5 years of welfare benefits. (“Revisiting Reform”) The agenda also required able bodied adults must go to work within two years of receiving help from the government. (“Revisiting Reform”) Welfare reform can be described as a governments attempt to alter the welfare policy of the
I have concluded that there are five major problems within our American government assistance system. One, the welfare system is too generous. There is evidence of this within the article because it states that government assistance spending has more than doubled since 2008. It also states that in poor countries people only have the choice to work or starve. They choose to work long hours and we choose to not work and receive benefits. There is definitely a problem with our assistance system if a single mother could receive more money in benefits than a secretary who works. Two, the welfare system becomes a crutch and acts as a government safety net. It creates idleness and comfort with people who rather receive a generous amount of benefits than work. Three, one-third of people claim disability are actually able to work. Four, states have significantly differen...
There have been numerous debates within the last decade over what needs to be done about welfare and what is the best welfare reform plan. In the mid-1990s the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Act was proposed under the Clinton administration. This plan was not received well since it had put a five year lifetime limit on receiving welfare and did not supply the necessary accommodations to help people in poverty follow this guideline. Under the impression that people could easily have found a job and worked their way out of poverty in five years, the plan was passed in 1996 and people in poverty were immediately forced to start looking for jobs. When the TANF Act was up for renewal earlier this year, the Bush administration carefully looked at what the TANF Act had done for the poverty stricken. Bush realized that, in his opinion, the plan had been successful and should stay in effect with some minor tweaking. Bush proposed a similar plan which kept the five year welfare restriction in place but did raise the budgeted amount of money to be placed towards childcare and food stamps. Both the TANF Act and Bush's revised bill have caused a huge controversy between liberal and conservative activists. The liberals feel that it is cruel to put people in a situation where they can no longer receive help from the government since so many people can not simply go out and get a job and work their way out of poverty. They feel if finding a job was that easy, most people would have already worked their way out of poverty. The conservatives feel that the plans, such as the TANF Act, are a surefire way to lower poverty levels and unemployment rates as well as decrease the amount o...
Blau, J. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
She argues the differences in the amount of support given to low-income families living near or below the poverty line as well as people without jobs or means to support their families otherwise. As a result political figures holding similar views will attempt to change government programs. The president Bill Clinton was successfully able to overhaul the welfare program in 1996. This article relates to Tunner and Pimpare article because it shows how the social welfare reforms has not make a significant impact to individuals well living for low-income families living near or below the poverty
... objective was to pull out people from poverty as the poor migrates to the urban were duly attracted to the incentives provided by the welfare. Not only has it reduced the amount of federal spending it also provides the welfare to be more efficient as the people are only allowed to receive federal support with a limited time span.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families represents a majority part of significant of welfare administered by states with federal funding. As for the other changes, welfare is no longer a privilege, and some people in most cases are required to work at least part-time to continue receiving benefits. I believe that federal funds can be used to provide benefits for up to five years, although some states may require less. Overall, poverty will provide financial assistance to children whose families have had at some point low or no income. In addition a specified time period would also prevent the program to not be taken for granted and that would be a program to assist, provide and promote growth for individuals and