The Pros of Welfare Reform
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.
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.
One big step towards reform has already been made by the State of Oregon, marking a simple path for the Nation. A new welfare reform program has been introduced, known as Jobs Plus. With the Jobs Plus Program, Oregon has been able to have strong work requirements and needed child and medical care for folks coming off of welfare.
Welfare can be defined as “systems by which government agencies provide economic assistance, goods, and services to persons who are unable to care for themselves” (Issitt). The United States welfare system is an extremely complex and unique entity that encompasses ideas and concepts from an abundance of different places. Many people believe the current system is an excellent resource for the population, while others believe the current welfare system requires reform and budget cuts to become effective.
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
Child welfare system was originated with the goals that social workers would try and alleviate poverty and its impact; however as the years have passed, the child welfare system turned into a child protection system directed toward investigating abuse and neglect, and removing children from families and placing them in foster care, and is no longer prepared to assist in resolving the problems of child poverty (Lindsey, 2004). Child welfare system has been developed around the residual approach which demands that aid should be given only after the family is in crisis or other support groups have failed to meet a child’s minimal needs. However, over the years, there have been different focuses for the child welfare system, whether it involved
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
Welfare can be defined as health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being; Prosperity; and Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need (Merriam-Webster, 2014). It can be very beneficial to people in need of it. Tim Prenzler stated that, “Welfare systems are often seen as providing a ‘safety net’ that prevents citizens falling below a minimum standard of living (2012, p2). Everyone is able to use is if they are in need of it. People have successfully used welfare to get out of their slum, and started to support themselves. Others have decided to not try to get out of that slum, and live off that welfare. They decided that they didn’t have to try, and let the government support them. Welfare is a good tool for people to get back on their feet, but shouldn’t be that persons steady income.
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).
As of 2012, roughly thirty five percent of the population in the United States was living with some sort of government assistance. The Welfare Reform Act was passed into law in 1996. Many of the country’s leaders promised to end welfare with this act. (“Welfare Reform”) This act ended the legal entitlement to welfare benefits. The bill also created time limits and work requirements for participation in the program. Welfare in the United States should be reformed because reform decreases poverty, increases independence in the country’s citizens, and increases the quality of life for former welfare recipients.
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.
These state efforts paved the way for radical changes in federal welfare law. On August 22, 1996, President bill clinton, a Democrat, signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (popularly known as the Welfare Reform Act), a bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. The act eliminated some federal welfare programs, placed permanent ceilings on the amount of federal funding for welfare, and gave each state a block grant of money to help run its own welfare programs. The law also directs each state legislature to come up with a new welfare plan that meets new federal criteria. Under the 1996 law, federal funds can be used to provide a total of only five years of aid in a lifetime to a family. In the early 2000s, Congress continued to debate the reauthorization of the 1996 law. Proponents of the law pronounced the reform effort a great success. States had met the requirement of halving their welfare rolls by 2002. In addition, many former welfare recipients had entered the workforce and child poverty had been reduced for the first time since the early
The number of people on welfare has been dropping since the early 1990's. Just because you get a job does not guarantee you will go off welfare. Many jobs are low paying and low skilled. These are sometimes the only jobs welfare recipients are qualified for. Programs to train workers are a move in the right direction.
Downs, S., Moore, E., McFadden, E., & Costin, L. (2004). Child welfare and family services: Policies and practice. (7th. Ed., pp. 319-363) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
The six major welfare programs in the United States, Medicaid, SNAP, Housing assistance, SSI, TANF, & general assistance (Elliott par.3). 52.2 million Americans are on at least one government welfare program (Elliot par. 6). This number is way too high. Welfare is for people who truly do not have a sufficient enough income to provide for their family. 52.2 million Americans are not below the poverty line and most make enough money to live a decent life, yet they still receive welfare benefits. 28% of those recipients are on Medicaid or SNAP (Elliot par 6.). The participation rate jumped from 18.6% in 2009 to 21.3% in 2012, and moreover, 43% of recipients received welfare for more than 37 months (Elliott par. 8, 11-12). Welfare is supposed to be a temporary way for people to focus on picking themselves up through a little bit of government assistance. If the government allows people to stay on welfare for longer than a year they have no incentive to find themselves a steady paying job because they can live off minimum wage and welfare. We can fix this by only allowing people to stay on welfare for a year at most. A year is more than enough time to find a job and earn a steady income. Also, allowing people to stay on government assistance this long in this large of a quantity increases how much is spent on
America is the greatest nation in the world. That is a sentence that has been stated many times by many different people, for many different reasons. Whether those reasons are militarily related, based on global political influence, or even economically. However one reason that this statement is repeated over and over again is the fact that America is the “land of opportunity”, a place where anyone can come, work hard and make something of themselves. No matter your age, race, religion, gender or creed, in America you have the opportunity to make something better for yourself and your family. However this ability, this “American Dream” is under attack. Not only is it under attack, it is under attack from within, from our own citizens. The motto of America seems to be changing, from “the land of opportunity”, a place you can work your way to prosperity, to the land of giving, a place where you can lounge yourself through life on someone else’s dime.