Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
United States welfare system and its effects
United States welfare system and its effects
Welfare reform in the us
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: United States welfare system and its effects
Unanswered Questions about Welfare Reform
Welfare is a means of financial assistant for poverty stricken individuals. Year after year presidents have attempted to reconstruct the welfare system so it does not act as a backbone for those who do not want to work, and year after year success seemed out of reach. That is, until President Bill Clinton thought he had the answer. He signed the new welfare reform act in August of 1996, vowing to “end welfare as we know it.” Terminating a 62 year-old federal entitlement, President Clinton put a limit on how long one can receive federal welfare assistance (Casse 36). Yet, this so called reform is not that at all. The government doesn’t see what happens to ex-welfare recipients after they are released from the program, and the youth of our country is catching the wrath of the reform. There are so many questions left unanswered about the reform.
The new welfare reform act put limit on how long one can receive federal assistance. Receivers of welfare were ordered to seek and find employment or go to school within two years or lose assistance. If a job or education were not obtained within this period of time assistance would be terminated after five years. The law also demanded that each state had to determine eligibility. It is a federal problem no longer. The law gives a block grant to each of the 50 states, distributing cash assistance when deemed necessary. As Casse points out, the law required each state to construct work requirements as a part of its welfare program. By the year 2002, states will need to show that at least 50% of those receiving welfare are involved in some form of work or training in exchange for benefits. These changes to the welfare system all come with exemptions, qualifications, alternative requirements, and rules and regulations that vary from state to state (Casse 36).
At first glance the rules for welfare recipients look like a sufficient way to stop welfare leeches, but if legislatures put heart-felt thought into this new plan they would have realized all of the flaws it carried. President Clinton was too busy boasting and bragging about the declining caseloads to notice the real effect it was having on everyone. A few huge problems drown out the welfare reformers’ chorus. According to Telly, “The first and most obvious is that it was too soon to make any meaningful...
... middle of paper ...
...elter (Telly 9). Trying to end welfare is not enough; something must be done about poverty.
Works Cited
Bridge, Junior. “Welfare Missing an Some Information.” Quill May 1996: 1-3
Casse, Daniel. “Why Welfare Reform is Working.” The Nation September 1997: 36-43
Cooper, Marc. “When Push Comes to Shove.” The Nation. 2 June 1997: 11-16.
EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite. Article # 9705252875 (31 October 2001).
Heim, David. “ Welfare Measure.” Christian Century 10 December 1997: 1147
EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite. Article # 9712223937 (31 October 2001).
Ivins, Molly. “The R’s and Reform.” The Progressive Nov. 1995: 46 EBSCOhost
Academic Search Elite. Article # 9510272661 (29 October 2001).
Murphy, Sharon. “Ending Poverty as We Know It.” The Progressive February
1998: 3-14
Polakow, Valarie. “On a Tightrope Without a Net.” The Nation 1 May 1997: 4-5.
Pollitt, Katha. “Subject to Debate.” The Nation 18 December 1996: 777.
Telly, Erin. “Ending Welfare.” The Progressive October 1997: 8. EBSCOhost Academic
Search Elite. Article # 9710230947 (28 October 2001).
Wills, Garry. “The New Welfare Mess.” Christian Century 10 April 1997: 380-382.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The issues surrounding welfare and welfare reform are controversial, political, and difficult to resolve. The debate continues today as to who deserves benefits and who does not. In 1933, President Roosevelt created Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as part of the New Deal. This early form of welfare was available to those who could demonstrate a need and the ability to maintain minimal assets of their own. It specifically targeted aid to single women with children. It was a controversial and highly debated subject. Even now, many years later, Congress continues to debate and reform welfare programs. It still brings with it the same intensity, controversy, and conflicting opinion it did years ago.
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.
Welfare is intended for families or individuals that are in need of assistance with no or little income. For those who do not know, Welfare funds come from hard working individuals that are required to pay taxes. Now we wonder, are the tax payers’ hard earned money going to the right deserving recipients? Welfare fraud is on the rise in this country. Many are taking advantage of the system taking away the help that is meant for people that truly needed help to provide for their families or people that need assistance until they can stand on their own feet. Statistics clearly show that “785,000 to 1.2 million families are illegally receiving welfare benefits. At the average rate of $11,500 per year, this means taxpayers are being scammed out of roughly $9 to $13.5 billion dollars every year” (User, par. 4) that is $13.5 Billion dollars of the tax payers hard earned money that is going to the wrong people that do not deserve it. What are the types of Welfare fraud that are being committed in the United States that our government needs to pay close attention to? To start, hopeful recipients will intentionally give false information about their household income to qualify. Some will sell their food stamps also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). Also, illegal and misuse of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) is one of the problems our Welfare System is facing today. All three are considered illegal and these type of activities need to be stopped immediately. People that are in need should be given the assistance they desperately ask for. The System should re-assure tax payers that their hard earned money is going to the right recipients and is not going into the wrong hands.
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 ...