Is welfare a necessary program for impoverished people, or is the government squandering its money on this initiative? In order to support her assertion that it is a need, Betty Mandell attempts to do so in Poor Women and Children Need Welfare. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute believes that welfare is an example of wasteful government spending. Both articles make valid value judgments and fact-based assertions to back up their claims.
Mandell notes that the notion of the Republicans then and now is to undermine the idea that government owes anything to its citizens. Mandell feels removing poor women and children’s access to financial lifelines will make their lives significantly worse than they are present.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $14
Prices start at $12
Tanner thinks the welfare system is a waste of money and treats all Americans unequally. Tanners’ evidence that welfare promotes criminality, out-of-wedlock births, and job training failure makes him think that government initiatives to change recipients’ behavior are ineffective.
Both Mandell and Tanner denounce the Personal Responsibility Act of 1994, which is claimed to be a pointless reform. The PRA establishes a two-year time limit for receiving welfare benefits, during which individuals will receive job training. Those who are no longer eligible for assistance at the end of the two years would be forced to seek employment in the commercial sector or serve in public service jobs.
The Republicans want to turn AFDC into the PRA. It would transform the program into a block grant and provide fixed funding for the next five years. For many reasons, Mandell thinks the PRA is absurd. Mr. Tanner also thinks so, as do other people.
According to Taffer, 80 percent of adolescent mothers drop out of high school, and he thinks that two years of job training is unlikely to prepare them for a competitive commercial sector. Mandell makes another case against the PRA, which he feels is misconstrued.
She claims that the PRA encourages a more comprehensive effort to persuade all women on welfare into repressive sexuality, restricted reproductive options, and conventional family structures. She also believes that it pushes women to rely economically on men in a traditional marriage, whether they want to or not.
Mandell does not support the Personal Responsibility Act, but she still believes in welfare. She feels that charity is necessary for poor women to survive because of her experience working with them. She also claims that welfare isn’t about being lazy or not wanting to work; it’s about requiring assistance and believing the public and government should be responsible for this help.
The media, according to Dr. Daniela Ginno, a professor at Kings College London and expert on gender issues in the United Kingdom, helps to stereotype welfare moms “and therefore promote stigma.” She debunks the myth that women have babies for the extra cash, arguing that contrary to popular belief there is no relationship between the two.
The number of births has not changed in states with increasing grant levels than those with flat or declining AFDC payments. Tanner considers that perhaps women don’t get pregnant to receive welfare, but when a young unwed teenager sees her neighbors and relatives who are also young and unwed and have children, she may not be so eager to do the same.
Even though Mandell does not think that welfare would appear more appealing than a regular job paying better salaries and benefits, Tanner disagrees. He states that owing to the economic incentives provided, many individuals choose welfare over work on occasion. Here is an example of talking about the total tax-free value of welfare perks being roughly equivalent to the income that may be obtained at several entry-level or low-paying occupations.
If a person on welfare were to give up their benefits, they would be unable to use them. Mandell believes that tax credits for those on welfare should not exist; they should simply be paid more and have to pay the same amount of taxes as everyone else. While it would be great if entry-level salaries were increased high enough so that they exceeded welfare wages, the government lacks the authority to do so.
Having similar beliefs means nothing if these people are not willing to work together for the common good. However, it is important to note that there are many different flavors of conservatism within the broad category of conservativism. Dan Saretsky, the author of Why I’m Not a Conservative, believes that libertarians want to return to the private governance model where citizens could do whatever they pleased without any government indiscretion or regulation by moralizing individuals over everything from healthcare and education issues. One might also say that he believes in self-government. Libertarianism seems to be another name for this viewpoint when applied outside North America. According to what was said above, belief number five says I should “work together with others”.
Since 1965, the United States has spent more than 3.5 trillion dollars to alleviate poverty in America without success. This is why I must follow Tanner’s argument. Even though Mandell makes an outspoken case for a guarantee that our fundamental needs will be satisfied and for the right to participate in how our welfare state is administered, Tanner has the most logical point of view.
He says it should be restored to its former state. Individuals who are unable to provide for themselves should be compelled to rely on family, church, and community resources or private charity. Every year, Americans give 120 billion dollars to charity.
Regardless of which, the notion that some of the reform measures are absurd ties these two essays together. Mandell simply feels like welfare should be maintained; it just requires a little assistance, according to him. According to Tanner, welfare is a complete waste of government money.
In a nutshell, first, Europe has suffered from high rates of unemployment and economic inactivity as a result of the global economy. It has also produced significant incentives to de-regulate and establish flexible labor markets, with sharp increases in wage disparity, part-time, temporary, and casual employment particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States.
The advent of these adjustments has resulted in substantial increases in poverty and income and wealth inequality across the world, notably in the United Kingdom. This has prompted two important long-term challenges for welfare policy: how to balance employment and income equality, and how to preserve Beveridge’s social insurance concept if people lose faith in it.
The subject of welfare has always been divisive. This issue emphasizes the importance of focusing on the various factors involved with regard to social welfare within our society. The proposed study will examine the topic of charity and several variables that may influence how much charity is given to poor people in four ways:
- Propose a definition of key concepts, as well as any other topics about which there is likely to be a misunderstanding.
- We will also do some additional research on the subject of welfare assistance in the United States’ history.
- And it’s necessary to consider all of these factors in order to properly evaluate a situation and come up with a solution.
- The conclusion of the essay depends on whether or not the advantages of welfare assistance outweigh the costs.
Finally, the goal of this study is to look at different elements that may influence welfare assistance. This cost-benefit evaluation is intended to show and explain the link between welfare and economic expenditure and benefits in order to determine and explain the relationship between welfare and economic cost and benefits.
Before welfare assistance can be evaluated, it is important to establish the words that will be utilized. Only policies like welfare aid are worthwhile if the societal benefits outweigh the expenditures. When confronted with a set of options, select the one with the highest net benefit (benefit over cost).
Thus, the phrase cost-benefit analysis originates from this. Cost-benefit analysis is a method for determining the best level of economic activity, such as welfare. In general, the provision of welfare assistance should be expanded as long as it generates greater benefits than expenses. Does the benefit of social assistance outweigh its costs?
Since 1981, the federal government has been required to perform cost-benefit analyses called Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA’s) on all significant regulations in the United States. Many laws demand that a cost-benefit analysis be completed and the findings reported to Congress (Mishan 2).
A cost-benefit analysis may be used to determine how successful a policy, such as welfare assistance, has been, or to identify areas in which a program can be improved. Regardless matter how it is employed, the completion of a cost benefit analysis provides a useful framework for assessing the potential consequences of an intended legislation.
Welfare History: The Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program was one of the first welfare programs to give income assistance to the needy. This legislation was passed shortly after the Social Security Act was created during the Great Depression.
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was founded nearly 60 years ago and provided a federal entitlement to economic assistance for single parents with children younger than 18 who fell below a wealth and income threshold, has become better known as the ADC program. Each state was permitted by federal rules to establish its own predetermined family needs standards based on different sizes and living areas.
The federal government and the states contributed towards the AFDC program (Rowley, and Peacock 50). In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which overhauled federal financial assistance to states by eliminating the AFDC program.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program is another example of a social welfare initiative. The Supplemental Security Income program was enacted by Congress in 1972 and began delivering benefits in January 1974. It succeeded the old Federal-State programs of Old-Age Assistance (OAA), Aid to the Blind (AB), and Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTD) (Myles, and Pierson 9).
On the basis of their age, blindness, or disability, individuals may have qualified for payments. Any individual aged 65 or older was eligible. With the signing of the Supplemental Social Insurance Act, President Richard Nixon established the Supplemental Security Income program. The original goals of this program were to assist elderly people who did not qualify for social security and blind and disabled persons with low earnings and assets levels.
The Medicaid program is a third major welfare assistance program. The Medicaid program is a healthcare support system aimed at the poor. Originally, according to plan, Medicaid was supposed to give equally decent health care to low-income people as that given by private insurance programs.
The Medicaid program was originally designed so that all qualifying families automatically received Medicaid benefits. Today, in the United States, Medicaid is the main mechanism for providing health and long-term care to the indigent. As a result, Medicaid coverage extends to more than 35 million Americans at a cost of more than $152 billion each year.
Explanations for Welfare: Although the United States has an enormous amount of economic resources, difficulties still arise. One such problem is that some individuals don’t have enough resources but rather how those resources are dispersed among its citizens. Some people live in squalor or total poverty, while others live in luxury, as a result of this.
The idea of a society with few or no people living in extreme poverty has been documented throughout history, particularly during the early 20th century. One approach to address this problem is through social justice policies that provide individuals who are unemployed and/or underpaid an incentive to find work quickly. The word “poverty” simply refers to a lack of money or economic resources. A person’s access to basic needs can be judged by their standard of living, which is also referred to as Standard of Living Indices (SLIs). As you can see, the number of persons classified as poor decreased significantly from 1960 until 1995.
The percentage of people in poverty during the early 1960s was 22.2%, or 39.9 million individuals, according to official statistics. According to data from the 1970s, the incidence of poverty fell to 12.6% of the population. The incidence of poverty has been rising steadily since 1970, when it stood at 13.8 percent of the population, or 7.5 million families (in 1995 dollars). The figures are much worse among certain family configurations such as single-parent households with children under the age of 18.
In fact, the highest poverty rates are found among those who live beneath the poverty line. (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 202) The threshold levels for families of various sizes were shown in Table 1 in 1995. 31,280 is the poverty line for a family of nine or more people.
Social welfare programs are designed to alleviate the suffering of the poor in our society due to the reasons stated above. But, what exactly is poverty? At first sight, it appears to be a simple question to answer. Let’s start by defining poverty: Poorness or poverty implies not having enough money for food, shelter, clothing, and other fundamental necessities.
Many causes contribute to the reality of poverty. They include low-quality services, low market prices for those services in a market, and poor productivity, among other things. (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 206) There is no one simple answer to what is the real cause of poverty because there are numerous factors at play. Low quality of resources, low market values on the services they provide in a market, low productivity, low pay of the poor due to insufficient education and training, misfortunes (including unemployment), small or no inheritances , and prejudice are all examples. The discussion continues.
Does the benefit of welfare assistance outweigh the expense? Now that people are aware of how social welfare programs were started, the next issue to consider is whether the advantage of welfare aid outweighs the expense. With Social Security Disability, you can work without fear of losing your income.
The EITC’s total annual cost rose from $2 billion to $12 billion between 1986 and 1992. By 1996, annual outlays had reached $25 billion, almost double the amount spent on AFDC during that period. While demand is one factor behind the rise in expenditure, there have been significant increases in benefits and eligibility extensions introduced in 1986, 1990, and 1993, accounting for much of the growth.
(Myles, and Pierson 6) Table 2 Federal Spending on EITC and AFDC, 1980-1996 ($ In billions) EITC (first) AFDC (second) 1980: 2.0, 5.4 – 1981: 1.9, 6.9-1982: 1.8, 6.9-1983: 1.8, 7.3-1984: 1.6, 7.7-1985: 2.1, 7.8-1986: 2.0, 8.2-1987: 3.9, 8.9-1988: 5.9, 9.1-1989: 6.6, 9.4-1990: 6.9, 10.1-1991: 10.6, 11.2-1992: 12.4, 12.3-1993: 13.2, 12.3-1994: 19.6, 12.4-1995: 22.8, 12.8-1996: 25.1, 13.2 Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Where Your Money Goes: The 1994-95 Green Book (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1994), 389, 700. Note: AFDC expenditures exclude state-level spending and Administrative costs.
Although the EITC expenditures have exceeded those of previous welfare programs such as AFDC, cost-benefit analysis may help determine the optimal level of welfare assistance spending, as long as estimates of the benefits and costs of welfare assistance are provided. Because to the fact that well-being will be improved through an increase in welfare assistance initiatives so long as the benefits society receives from this is at least equal to or greater than the additional activities’ cost, cost-benefit analysis indicates that well-being will be enhanced through an increase in welfare assistance programs if benefits and costs are estimated correctly.
The Opportunity Cost: The costs of welfare assistance to society are ultimately paid for by some sort of tax revenue. The economic cost to society is the product value of resources used for welfare assistance if they had not been utilized for welfare assistance. The opportunity cost principle simply states that the real cost of producing an extra unit of anything is the value of other things that must be given up to obtain it. (Schiller 10) The opportunity cost principle may be a useful tool for determining the true costs of welfare assistance.
Other Kinds of Expenses: Explicit costs are another sort of cost that welfare assistance may incur. The expense incurred by the producer to acquire or employ the resources required to achieve its aim is known as an explicit cost (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 69). Although government-funded welfare assistance does not aim to profitably distribute products, it must nevertheless be done so through buying and selling.
The costs of the resources that the government purchases and employs to deliver such services, such as land, personnel, buildings, equipment, and so on, are known as explicit costs. Welfare aid is available in all 50 states and territories with offices throughout each state and possibly each county. The direct expenses of welfare assistance alone are huge.
The Implicit Costs: Another category of costs is an implicit costs. The producer’s use of self-owned, self-employed resources induces implicit expenses (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 69). These costs are frequently overlooked or hidden. The opportunity cost principle can be used to identify these expenses. Welfare assistance may have a negative social value even if it has an economic benefit.
By concentrating resources or offering welfare aid, the government reduces the number of goods and services available to society, such as military hardware. The government may be able to offer more welfare aid to the poor by restricting military equipment sales that might have been profitable. These hidden costs include both implicit expenses for the government and the societal benefit of social safety net programs.
Social welfare aid programs provide numerous advantages to the poor, the government, and society. The most visible beneficiary is the low-income person. Without social welfare assistance, some individuals might not be able to make it in this world. Additionally, other social programs such as job training, childcare, educational grants, medical expenses, and tax credits benefit the poor. A lot of these people would have a hard time obtaining such services if it weren’t for social welfare assistance programs.
The government also profits from welfare programs, albeit to a lesser extent than the poor. If welfare assistance didn’t exist for the needy, they would have to support themselves. There are just a few options for supporting oneself and one of them is by obtaining money illegally or without permission. If a person can’t find work because there aren’t enough jobs or he/she doesn’t have adequate job skills, that individual will attempt to “procure” funds in some manner so that he or she may put food on his or her plate.
Without a growing economy and social welfare assistance, crime rates would most certainly rise. Finally, social welfare programs benefit society as a whole. If welfare assistance programs didn’t exist, the crime rate would undoubtedly be much greater owing to the lack of an equitable distribution of resources. This pattern of ownership gives rise to uneven income distribution in society (Smith et al., 208).
Because of the increased criminality, resources would have to be reallocated in order to try and address such problems. This wouldn’t be an efficient use of resources since crime prevention spending is greater than welfare aid programs’ expenditures. Problems such as drug abuse, prostitution, and a variety of other criminal misdeeds would spread throughout society if social welfare assistance programs were eliminated.
In terms of welfare reform, the findings are in a state of suspense. The predictions made as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 have yet to be evaluated, in part because they require more time or significant events such as an economic recession for a full evaluation.
Nonetheless, cost-benefit analysis has shown that welfare programs may be beneficial to society while also being somewhat expensive at times. The recent welfare reform policies, which include time limits and training for individuals on public assistance, have demonstrated the ability to assist reduce and shrinking the welfare rolls.
People are inclined to avoid work when they are on welfare. Many people have neglected their duty to work and put the burden on the taxpayers, much like many other Americans. She turns to government assistance for a short period of time. They are relying on welfare, which is being used as political growth for the United States in terms of moving products and services forward.
The current evidence backs up the notion that welfare can cause a woman to marry older men. She is, in fact, very beneficial to those who have little money or no way of earning money. To promote out-of-wedlock childbirth for her children, she relies on welfare.
For each country, the percentage of mothers who give birth out of wedlock is approximately the same. 68.9 percent of ladies aged 10,000 years old had their first kid outside of marriage. Another consideration is that young parents were not married when they gave birth. Someone in the state and/or congress has attempted to increase welfare; however, the continuous rise in social assistance programs has been unchecked, preventing young females from obtaining government aid.
Any American taxpayer has seen that welfare systems seem to last for a long time rather than a short period in order to assist young females leaving the program. There has been an increase in government assistance to younger women who have additional children out of wedlock. Everybody knows that the more generous the government is, the greater welfare it provides; instead of looking for employment in order to care for their family.
A welfare system is a set of laws and procedures designed to assist the poor as well as their families in obtaining their basic necessities. The word “welfare” refers to government programs established to give assistance to needy individuals. Social security, financial aid, corporate welfare, and welfare provisions are just a few examples of such programs.
The government helps citizens by providing them with various services, such as housing assistance, unemployment compensation, healthcare, child care aid, and food stamps. The federal government distributes funds to each state through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program in the United States.
The aim of the welfare system is to give a minimum level of income to those who are disabled, elderly, retired, or jobless. It’s worth noting that the welfare system is concerned with an enormous number of individuals and as a result, complete government involvement is required. According to on O’Connor’s view, the government has a social duty and moral responsibility to ensure that all activities carried out by various welfare organizations come to a successful conclusion.
Despite the fact that welfare programs are beneficial, their collaboration with the government has lately been criticized by critics who claim that the primary aims of these plans are in direct contradiction to what the public is led to believe. This essay will examine some of the benefits and drawbacks of the welfare system and discuss them out in order to establish a compromise.
It’s worth noting that social safety nets are beneficial to modern society. Despite the fact that individuals in contemporary societies are very productive, they confront a variety of issues that might have a negative influence on their daily routines. Welfare programs have been proven to be helpful and supportive in assisting individual participants to resolve these issues.
Despite the fact that welfare programs can not provide a life free of difficulties, they serve as a transmogrification mechanism by which vulnerable individuals may be cushioned from the potential negative effects of poor health, unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy.
Opponents of the bill claim that these programs are frequently designed with a particular company or individual in mind. Welfare systems have also been called indirect government assistance to various business enterprises. Opponents object to government intervention on the grounds that it might cause certain businesses to go bankrupt.
These plans, they add, do not provide long-term solutions to most of the issues that people confront. It has been claimed that rather than providing millions of individuals with unemployment compensation, the government should come up with a plan for ensuring that everyone who wishes to work is able on a regular basis.
It’s crucial to remember that social assistance programs are intended to help individuals regain their feet after a difficult period. Some people, on the other hand, may abuse these systems as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. Some persons may neglect their duty and rely solely on welfare benefits for aid. These are the types of individuals who develop the notion that there is no need for them to work for minimum wage when they can get the same amount of money just by doing nothing.
It has been discovered that certain persons have inhabited social homes for decades without indication of leaving. Despite the fact that these people may now be financially secure, the majority of them are unwilling to leave those structures in order to assist other impoverished individuals. As a result, children raised believing this is all there is rise up and perpetuate the cycle.
Single parents who have a kid yet lack the resources to care for it may benefit from welfare programs. Single moms, for example, benefit greatly from these programs since they are given meals, money, and accommodation.
Opponents argue that welfare beneficiaries are unable to fulfill all of their household demands from the government assistance they receive. As a result, they feel that welfare cannot provide the crucial help when it is required. It’s worth noting, however, that while welfare programs do not provide 100% financial assistance to beneficiaries, they are one of the greatest methods for helping poor people meet their urgent requirements.
Welfare programs, according to Sather, are critical in preventing social disparities and health issues from progressing to crisis stages. They aid individuals in keeping their living conditions close to that of financially stable individuals. People are able to keep their homes even with low earnings and unemployment, eliminating the need for homelessness.
Medical care not only improves the health of individuals, but has also had a significant influence on public health. The development of Medicare and Medicaid are regarded by many as God-sent efforts that have aided millions of financially unstable US residents. These initiatives provide low-cost healthcare to those from low-income backgrounds, ensuring that general society’s health remains intact (Kildar and Kuhnle 70).
Opponents caution that welfare programs may not be a long-term solution to big issues in individuals’ lives and might instead cultivate dependence. It has been argued that unemployed people should rather be given basic skills for them to find employment.
It’s been said that continuing welfare assistance might contribute to a person’s basic skills and understanding of appropriate workplace behavior deteriorate. Economists add that welfare programs are expensive for municipalities.
Regardless of the federal government’s contribution, states continue to incur costs for managing welfare programs. Opponents argue that rather than distributing millions of dollars in welfare assistance to people who are unemployed to a certain extent, the money should be invested in more productive sectors. These programs are often seen as potential pathways for fraud.
With this in mind, Kildar and Kuhnle emphasize that individuals may provide false information with the aim of obtaining financial compensation from social assistance programs (71). Cases have been documented where people have found additional sources of income but fail to notify welfare authorities as a result of their fear of losing financial aid. Additionally, it has been reported that individuals earn thousands of dollars each year yet provide incorrect information in order to profit from Medicaid.
The welfare system, though, cannot be scrutinized simply on the actions of a few individuals who are following misdirected ideas. Welfare has benefited a large number of children who have had nothing to do with affecting their family’s financial situation. It should be mentioned that, in addition to all children having the right to obtain basic necessities, they should not be penalized for their parents’ behavior. In some cases, welfare has aided crime reduction.
Despite the fact that this assertion is difficult to prove, the existence of a welfare system that provides financial assistance for basic needs helps guarantee that people who are financially unstable do not engage in unlawful behavior. The notion that those in need will rise and get back on track is at the heart of the welfare system.
Welfare has been characterized as a minor, impermanent assistance that can’t address the problems of its recipients, yet it does provide those in need with a means to survive as well as encouraging them to seek employment in order to have a stable existence. Even while the welfare system has recently faced criticism from opponents, it is clear that the work done by these programs is beneficial.
Welfare has been characterized as a minor short-term assistance that can’t solve individuals’ difficulties, yet it provides those in need with a way to live and encourages them to seek employment in order to have a secure existence. Welfare programs play an important part in preventing social gaps and health issues from worsening.
In today’s modern world, the United States faces a wide range of public policy difficulties, ranging from social welfare to immigration to environmental issues. Every day, Congress is bombarded with numerous public policy concerns that they are unable to address or solve.
To find a viable answer, the US Congress has focused on issues that are more essential and crucial to resolving. Today we see an increasing number of problems in society regarding social welfare. Social Welfare has a lot of challenges, including food stamps and even healthcare. The difficulties in social welfare need everyone’s assistance to resolve; they aren’t limited to congress.
The second major public policy topic we confront in America today is within the Public Assistance Systems. The SNAP, SSI, and even the TANF program are a few of them. A critical problem with America’s social welfare system is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP). This issue has been going on for a long time, and several states have imposed restrictions on what individuals may buy with their SNAP cards.
“Kansans receiving government assistance will no longer be able to use those funds to go to swimming pools, see movies, gamble, or get tattoos on the state’s dime,” an online piece claims (Gibson).
Example #7 – The Welfare Policies And Welfare Programs
The federal government, in turn, determines who is qualified for welfare and under what terms. Though federal money can only be given for five years at a time, the states are also in charge of determining who is eligible for assistance and for how long. When it comes to working and caring for their children, women today have very few alternatives.
The following portion of this paper will address social welfare policies intended to assist women overcome the difficulties of being both housekeepers and caregivers. Welfare Programs and Eligibility There are a variety of welfare programs accessible to ladies in need that can be quite beneficial in assisting them return on track financially and become more stable.
Welfare programs are state-enforced programs that are available only to those who live beneath the minimum acceptable income set by each state government. Welfare benefits might be included in a variety of program umbrellas, all of which necessitate certain criteria for continuing to receive payments.
Cash assistance (TANF or TAFDC), the child support program, child care, energy or utility aid, food assistance, WIC, and medical insurance are only a few of the many welfare programs available. You must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident to qualify for any aid; additionally, you must meet income and asset requirements. Women make up a significant proportion of those who receive aid benefits.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.