Name:
Supervisor:
Course:
Date:
Welfare Reform.
Welfare is a government initiative in which the state protects and tries to protect its citizens’ social and economic well-being. The principles that direct this are equal opportunity, equitable distribution of resources, and the public’s responsibility to other fellow citizens who are unable to afford the minimum to live a good life. There are over 100 million American that lives on welfare today. Some of the things that the government has to offer in welfare include food stamps, health insurance, unemployment, day case, and housing. There are various debates, one being that those who are recipients of welfare abuse the system. This paper presents a detailed analysis of the current and the previous reforms that have changed how different welfare functions.
The first legislation regarding welfare was in august 1996, and this was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that was passed. This act assists needy families. The federal government gives grants that are aimed at assisting low-income families. The major focus is taking them from welfare to work where they can become independent of discouraging them from seeking welfare. States need not match the federal government’s contribution to welfare. There has been reduced funding towards welfare, and there lacks standardization and regulations. As a result of this, many families do not know that they could qualify for childcare, food stamps, or health insurance. (Cahn, 965) shows that by changing the way the old entitlement program was, the government only achieved eliminating the social cushioning that existed for people.
There has been researching, specifically in South Carolina, that 60% of people who used to receive welfare before the restructuring are not aware that a parent can get transitional Medicaid. Some of the states have not made an effort to sensitize possible recipients of their eligibility to receive childcare assistance after the closure of welfare benefits (Sherman et al., 62); besides, he also shows that in some cases, funds were diverted to fund tax cuts for the middle class where the welfare was deemed as surplus.
There has been a diversion from the original intended purpose of programs like temporary assistance for needy families. There is a great contradiction in how two situations are viewed. Take, for example, the creation of Family Aid with Dependent Children (AFDC) sixty years ago; this was geared towards encouraging women with children to stay at home and be good homemakers (Gilens 593). The difference comes when highly paid professional women leave their job to raise their kids. They were seen as good mothers, but poor women were expected to leave their home and seek employment to be seen as good mothers.
One major point of contention is on the responsibility put on taxpayers to support people who are seen as too lazy to seek employment opportunities to better their lives. All efforts geared toward reform have mainly been focused on categorizing the possible recipients as people who are unwilling to work and prefer being given the taxpayers money instead. Most of the politicians are of the view that spending on welfare is excessive and unnecessary. Before the welfare reform becoming popular, there was a report by the U.S Bureau of Census that the exact amount spent on AFDC was 7% of the $613 billion spent on social welfare, and this included veteran’s programs, education, housing, public aid, and health care. This statistic goes to show that there is no excessive spending, and the motive behind the reason as to why calls for welfare reforms continues to grow as suspicious.
When one looks keenly at who the reform bills seem to target, one can see that the mother affected will be the poor minority women. A study by (Sherman et al., 593) also showed that 95% of the beneficiaries of TANF were single women with children. This leaves no doubt about the people who are likely to be affected by these reforms. Michigan Laws Review also echoes this when it agrees that more African American women benefit from welfare than whites and that there are also more blacks living in poverty than the white American population (Cahn p.197). The media has played a role in painting a picture of welfare recipients that is not accurate and is mostly stereotypical.
The welfare reforms pride itself in helping beneficiary transition from welfare to work, but this has been contrary to the truth in practice. According to the National Governor’s Association, about 40 to 50% of people who left TANF had no employment. There is workforce discrimination, which, coupled with the unavailability of affordable childcare, makes it even harder for a single mother to find employment. There is a disregard for things that precede employment, especially for single mothers. For these mothers to move and find employment, then finding daycare for their children would be central. Those who are working and are poor have always been overlooked in welfare programs related to childcare. One of the ways the federal government supports childcare is through tax credits. One of the shortcomings of this method is that only the middle and upper-class income can benefit from this as most of the credit can only be offered to people who can pay taxes, and the low-income families cannot do this.
The system as it stands is heavily fragmented, which can be attributed to the program’s various funding streams. More differences can be observed when a comparison is made from one state to the other. There is also a long waiting list observed in some states like California and Texas, and mothers have to wait. There is also the fear of losing health insurance attributed to the low employment rate among welfare recipients, especially women with children. And perhaps is affordable insurance available to working women, then they would be more willing to take up work. When pushing for welfare changes, the major question that we should ask is what real purpose of this change, and what program will run the change. The 1996 registration had the purpose of assisting the families fight for welfare dependency. This was done by promoting the work marriage and reducing nonmarital birth, which was done to maintain two-parent families. The conservatives wanted to emphasize the work a family and formation deal with while many liberals keep appreciating the pre-welfare formation. Most of the welfares have been covering income for needy families.
Finally, there are possibilities that various jurisdictions could be failing to offer social and economic support to the poor. This could be intentional or unintentional as a result of policy change. Welfare reform is sure to make everyone dependent on them is affected negatively, and women will most certainly felt the burden of this change. There are also major differences in class, race, and gender from the beneficiaries to the people who can effect the changes. Most of these changes or reasons for change may not be founded on facts, rather stereotypes and misinformation, and people most affected by these changes to do have an opportunity to contribute to these discussions. In the welfare authorization debate, there has always been tension between various groups. This tension is based on the restoration of some very key aspects of welfare. Althea, all welfares are entitled to cash benefits. Some of the rules put forward always seem to be very unfavorable to some of the members due to an extensive discussion that can cover notably a five-year time limit section. This has also given several low incomes among the member of the welfare. When one person loses their job in a not understandable way, it is clear that welfare can be sued to manage and mitigate the problem. Without proper reform, there is a high chance that the welfare may not work as expected. Research has shown that welfare reforms have been so important to both workers and the group members’ work and well-being. Without welfare, then it is a high chance that the working condition in so many companies will become unbearable.
References.
Cahn, Naomi R. “Representing race outside of explicitly racialized contexts.” Michigan Law Review (1997): 965-1004.
Gilens, Martin. “Race coding” and white opposition to welfare.” American Political Science Review 90.3 (1996): 593-604.
Sherman, Arloc, et al. “Welfare to What: Early Findings on Family Hardship and Well-Being.” (1998).