Bill Clinton’s first presidential term was a surprising change period in policy toward low-income families. In 1993 Congress enacted a major development of the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families. In 1996 Congress passed and the president signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). This legislation abolished the sixty-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replaced it with a block grant program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. However, it not only restricted the recipients with firm new work requirements but also limited the length of time people could receive welfare benefits. Impressive change in AFDC was also happening gradually in the states during these years. States used waivers granted by the federal Department of Health and Human Services to experiment with various welfare strategies, including denial of additional benefits for children born or conceived while a mother received AFDC, work requirements, and time limits on receipt of cash benefits. The speed of change at the state level accelerated after the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation gave states better flexibility to design their programs. Until 1996, there was a situation of overwhelming public rejection of existing AFDC program. Candidate Clinton promised in his 1992 election campaign to “end welfare as we know it.” In his book Ending Welfare as We Know It the author calls the political environment in 1996 as a chaos that it was nearly impossible “political fluke” to make that reform. The book examines how social factors and political institutions act upon each other. Firstly, the author gives examples of President Nixon’s Family Assistance P... ... middle of paper ... ...rogram took place. It particularly evaluates the national welfare reform signed in 1996. In fourteen chapters, R. Kent Weaver addresses three sets of questions about the politics of welfare reform: the depressing history of complete AFDC reform initiatives; the remarkable changes in the welfare reform agenda over the past thirty years; and the reasons why complete welfare reform at the national level succeeded in 1996 after failing in previous attempts. Welfare reform raised issues of race, class, and sex that are as complicated and divisive as any in American politics. In addition to that, social and political trends helped to create a historic opportunity for welfare reform in the late 1990s. Finally, President Clinton and congressional Republicans along with other policymakers turned “ending welfare as we know it” from political possibility into policy reality.
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).
Linda Gordon's article is thoughtful, insightful and highly relevant. As governments slash poverty relief programs at all levels and as welfare-bashing reaches an all-time high, it is instructive to take a step back and look at how the current system developed.
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.
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
The current system has not been good for children. In 1965 there were 3.3 million children on AFDC; by 1992, that had risen to over 9 million children despite the fact that the total number of children in this country has declined. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated if we do nothing, 12 million will be on AFDC in 10 years. Instead of working up, we find more and more children being trapped in a system and into dependency on welfare. 90 percent of the children on AFDC live without one of their parents. Only a fraction of welfare families are engaged in work. There are always the sad accounts of how, again and again, women would get off of welfare, they would be doing well on their own, but their child-care would fall apart just as they were getting back on their feet. The new bill provides $3.5 billion more than current for that needed child care.
Blau, J. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
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
Federal Action Alert: Urge President Clinton to Veto Welfare Legislation that Harms Children. Online. Yahoo. Internet. 10 Mar. 1998.
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
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.
Being raised in a single-parent lower class home, I realize first-hand the need for welfare and government assistance programs. I also realize that the system is very complex and can become a crutch to people who become dependent and complacent. As a liberal American I do believe that the government should provide services to the less fortunate and resources to find work. However, as able-bodied citizens we should not become complacent with collecting benefits and it is the government’s job to identify people who take advantage of the system and strip benefits from people who are not making efforts to support themselves independently. I will identify errors that exist within the welfare system and several policy recommendations to implement a change that will counteract the negative conditions that currently exist.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program was developed to help needy families become self-sufficient.¹ The TANF program was created by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.² TANF was created by The Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) out of the preexisting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which itself was created by Congress in 1935 as part of the Social Security Act.² There were some notable differences between the PRWORA and the TANF when it was created, the most noted differences were that the TANF allowed states to use TANF dollars to support child care, for job search support, social services,etc. and there were no requirements on how much could be spent on cash aid directly.² Also, the entitlement aspect of the PRWORA ended and states were not required to serve all eligible families/individuals.²
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 ...
Lyndon Johnson was the next president to make significant advances in social welfare. He launched his War on Poverty, aimed at turning America into a Great Society, one without homeless on the streets or hungry children. In order to accomplish these goals he established liberalized requirements for government money. Over the next thirty years, Johnson’s dreams of a society without poverty were not realized. Time showed his programs did more harm than good, raising the nation debt to staggering proportions. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a Welfare Reform bill as passed to by a Republican Congress. Reform in 1996 meant cutbacks in aid to the peopl...