Welfare Reform Essay
“Walker said unemployment benefits should be ‘more like a trampoline and less like a hammock”, this quote from the article on Scott Walker’s view on welfare best explains how welfare should be. Welfare programs are supposed to help people who are having trouble get back on their feet, but some people see it as a handout from the government that lets them have a free pass in life. Although there are people who use welfare to bounce back from their financial struggles, but some people take advantage of it and take the benefits without trying to work to get out of the struggle. The welfare system was never made to help people who take advantage of the system. It was made to help people who can’t make enough money to survive
…show more content…
Walker wants to make reforms to people on welfare who are receiving benefits to work 30 hours a week instead of 20 to be able to qualify for the program(Vetter 4)."We want to help people who are able to work get into the workforce." Walker’s statement was to show an example of a reform that could benefit the programs by not supporting able bodied people as much and instead to get them to not just collect benefits.Walker believes that by making this kind of reform it will affect welfare recipients, for the better and give them a better chance of getting off the programs. Where as Dana Wachs, who is a candidate for governor in Wisconsin has a completely different argument on the topic of welfare. He believes that the way that Walker is thinking on improving welfare will only be troublesome to the people on the programs,Wachs goes on to explain that children could be affected in the reform(Vetter 12). Wachs goes on to say that Walker only sees some problems as ones that he thinks should be fixed instead of focusing on other problems involved with welfare(Vetter 12). With this we see that a reform should be made but in a way that won’t negatively affect recipients and leave them in a situation that is worse than it was before. Knowing this, many politicians struggle to decide on who needs help from the …show more content…
The recipients would be in an even deeper hole than the one they were in before. If people were to lose their benefits then it would cause them to go homeless because they weren’t able to keep up with rent or be able to pay for wherever they are staying. A navy veteran in Maine who did not have a job had his food stamps taken away which caused him to go about his life by asking others for food or even go days without eating, this isn’t the kind of way a person should be living(Dewey,Jan,3). That kind of reform isn’t one that people want, by doing this people are basically telling them that their lives are meaningless and should have worked hard to achieve a life without welfare. Work requirements for welfare were increased due to anti-poverty programs(Dewey,Jan,4). The change in qualifications for programs is meant to get people to work,but it’s just hurting the impoverished people by taking away aid from them. The reforms will cause more people who depend on the system along with people who are unemployed to struggle to find a job or work. The reforms do get people to try and find jobs and work instead of relying on the benefits of welfare,but by doing so many people who cant find jobs are left to deal with the difficulty of surviving on even less than before. This reform could do some good even though it causes more trouble for the people who don’t have a lot.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Many families and people have become too dependent on food stamps. “Critics of food stamps and government spending, however, argue that too many families have become dependent on government aid.”(NoteCard #1) But if they did not have this program people would go hungry. “11.9 million people went hungry in the United States”... “that included nearly 700,000 children, up more than 50% from the year before.”(NoteCard #2, Point 2) The program does good and helps people but it also spends a lot of money to get people food stamps. “..food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007, and the costa have more than doubled to $77 billion from $33 billion.”(NoteCard #5) But in the end, is it worth it? People need the assistance. It does help people from going hungry and keeps them at least with a little food in their stomach to that keeps them from starving. A lot of people who could not get jobs, were eligible for the program because they did not have a source of income. “Critics of food stamps and government spending, however, argue that too many families have become dependent on government aid.”(NoteCard #1) Since not everyone could get work, the government changed the requirements and it went for the better and for the
The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual and human rights. Liberals support most social and human service programs; such as TANF, including long-term welfare, housing programs, government regulated health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and educational funding. Their goal is to create programs that promote equal opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion, along with many others. Liberals believe that government participation is essential and a means to bring about fairness and justice to the American way of life.
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).
...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.”
The United States Government has pumped more than $3.5 trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars into welfare but, ironically, the poverty rate is higher than when they started (Tanner, Welfare Reform). This outrageous amount of money proves that welfare will lead United States into debt. The original intent of current welfare benefits has failed; therefore the national welfare system must be reformed. To fully understand how to reform the welfare system Americans must know what the history of welfare is, illegitimate births’ obvious connection to crime and welfare, how welfare has failed to keep the poverty rate down, the great problem of dependency, and finally what reforms must be made. Welfare reforms will greatly help this Nation become stronger and have a more secure future.
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.
Welfare for the poor means minimal support, degrading, humiliation and continued poverty. On the other hand, welfare for the non-poor provides security and are based on legitimacy. The welfare system does not distribute benefits on the base of need but rather on the basis of legitimacy. Poor people are often view as less legitimate as compare to the non-poor. Furthermore, welfare programs for the poor are labeled and can be seen as disgraceful. As stated in the article there is much degradation and humiliations involved in some poor people’s programs that some try greatly to stay off welfare. Some who are qualified for the programs do not take it due to negative indignity and shame that comes along with it. In comparison to welfare programs for the non-poor much protective language is taken to cover up and camouflaged the wording of the programs. Another, important difference between welfare for the poor and welfare for the non-poor are level of government involved. Welfare programs for the non-poor are federally financed and administered with decisions on eligibility and on levels of support made nationally. Programs for the poor are usually supported by federal funds and administered as local programs. I asked my boyfriend what his thoughts were on social security and welfare he responded that they were two completely different programs .He stated