"Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence." This statement was made by Ronald Reagan in January of 1970 during an interview with the "Los Angeles Times" (Williamson). The federal government-funded welfare program in the United States began in the 1930s during the Great Depression. Due to the vast number of people who were out of work and unable to afford food for their families, President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved a program that provided money to state governments to create jobs for the unemployed (Bill). This marked the beginning of federal aid and the welfare system as we know it today. This paper will examine whether or not welfare is effective in our society. the Reform of 1996.
Over the years, the United States welfare system has been a topic of debate, with some proposing welfare reform while others rejecting it. However, the most well-known change to the welfare system since the 1930s is the Reform of 1996. According to Rebecca M. Blank, the current chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Biography), the Reform of 1996 achieved the following: (1) dissolution of the Federal Cash Assistance program, (2) transfer of welfare distribution control to the states, and (3) sending of funds to the states instead of directly to welfare recipients. The government established the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF in place of the Federal Cash Assistance program (Blank 1). Giving states control over welfare fund distribution allows them to impose regulations that require individuals to secure employment within a specific timeframe instead of receiving welfare benefits indefinitely. This significant reform has sparked much debate among Americans regarding its effectiveness. The following will explore the implications of no reform, the implications of reform, and my conclusions regarding the Reform of 1996.
Not only have many people approved the 1996 Welfare Reform, but many have also declared that welfare needs further reform. One such article that supports this statement is "TANF and Federal Welfare," written by Michael Tanner and Tad Dehaven, writers for the CATO Institute, a research organization. In this article, Tanner and Dehaven state, "The tragedy of government welfare programs is not just wasted taxpayer money but wasted lives." They support this statement by explaining how welfare breaks up families, destroys work incentives, and affects crime rates. They also propose that private charities should replace all welfare programs entirely.
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.
It seems like the Welfare system treats its recipients with disrespect and shame to discourage them from joining the system. The people who made and run Welfare in the 1990s made Welfare into a blame game and forces recipients to solely blame themselves for their poverty. The moral prescriptions in individually getting rid of poverty according to TANF are the Work Plan/Family Plan. The focuses on work and family are contradictory because of how little time there is to get both goals done and each goal perpetuates the idea that it is the most important part of ending poverty. It seems like Welfare is more about getting people off of Welfare than eradicating poverty. There is a difference in the goals and that is reflected in how the recipients are treated and how Welfare is run.
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
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.
Reflecting the “work first” approach, TANF placed a lifetime limit of five years on welfare eligibility. The new approach to welfare...
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
As part of the Affordable Care Act, beginning this year Medicaid will expand eligibility to include all uninsured individuals under the age of 65 whose incomes fall at or below 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, or about $32,500 for a family of four. However, the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law also allowed states more flexibility concerning what parts of the ACA they can implement and said that those same states would not lose federal funding for their existing programs. This result would leave the decision to opt out of the law's provision into the hands of state legislators. While twenty-six states have chosen to expand healthcare coverage, twenty-one states have not and four have yet to make a decision. The state of Florida is among those not seeking to expand coverage and that decision alone could cost Florida millions of dollars a year in tax penalties. As conservative and liberal state lawmakers square off into a maelstrom of debate over whether Medicaid should cover more people, thousands of uninsured Floridians will be caught in the crossfire.
Since the Welfare reform law was introduced in 1996 it has impacted American society greatly. The new welfare policy, named the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), replaced the Aid to Family and Dependent Children (AFDC) program; they have five known differences that only affect the ones who need the assistance. Critics argue that the TANF has negatively impacted the society while some argue that it has not. Linda Burnham, author of “Welfare Reform, Family Hardship & Woman of Color,” asserts that “welfare reform has increased the hardship faced by many women leaving welfare for work and their movement into low-wage jobs, exposes them to higher level of housing insecurities, homelessness, food insecurity, and hunger.” She also argues that women of color “are especially vulnerable to the negative impact of welfare reform” (38).
Welfare has been a safety net for many Americans, when the alternative for them is going without food and shelter. Over the years, the government has provided income for the unemployed, food assistance for the hungry, and health care for the poor. The federal government in the nineteenth century started to provide minimal benefits for the poor. During the twentieth century the United States federal government established a more substantial welfare system to help Americans when they most needed it. In 1996, welfare reform occurred under President Bill Clinton and it significantly changed the structure of welfare. Social Security has gone through significant change from FDR’s signing of the program into law to President George W. Bush’s proposal of privatized accounts.
...ican welfare system has many flaws and I have identified major problems and possible solutions/policy recommendations. We can’t completely dismiss government assistance because we are a land of the equality of all and should be proud to have services that help the less fortunate. However, we must identify people who misuse and people who become too comfortable. We can’t continue to fall deeper into debt by supporting people who are not making an effort to support themselves. Nonetheless, we should help and assist those who are constantly trying to become educated, skilled, and experienced enough to become self-sufficient. I will close with a quote from the article about welfare helping a lady survive while she was studying. Currently she has a degree and a job as a manager. “I had clear goals,” “I wasn’t raised to sit at home expecting a check to come in the mail.”
For years, the welfare topic has been debated, and throughout history, both failed and thriving solutions have been seen to this dispute. The settlement of the matter of welfare came from independently sponsored programs only to be replaced by government funded organizations and devices to benefit the less fortunate using taxes, aids, and deductions. With the only hope to overcome the grief stricken state our country has been in over the centuries of seeing the destruction of nations over the word that stirs up a variety of emotions, welfare, to be the decreased amount and time government support should be offered. Most importantly, as seen through the effects of social welfare, the need for change in responsibility, the root of the problem, is to be Christians and the community rather than the government’s, whose failed efforts left our country in declining “poverty” as identified by the means-tested programs and raised taxes.
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 ...
Millions of people in the United States today are on some type of public assistance. Some Americans are on Medicare, which provides to the people who cannot afford private health insurance and for those 65 or older. Another type of public assistance is TANF, which many families are on; an organization that helps needy families with some grants and guidance provided by the government. Some states are taking all obligatory measurements to make sure that the taxpayers’ money for public assistance is being used properly by those people who actually need the help and not to buy drugs and alcohol. These public restrictions are put in place, so the people who actually need the help to survive and who wish to live their lives with the American dream in mind, may have a chance.
Poverty is in our own backyard. Poverty isn’t turning around a globe and looking toward third world countries for an example. Poverty is everywhere. Poverty is the children down the street who go to bed hungry each night filled only with emptiness. Poverty is my neighbor who had her heat shut off this past winter. However I believe that poverty is preventable.