Welfare: from hand up to hand out. Welfare in the United States - Essay Example

and Number Due Welfare: From Hand Up to Hand Out Welfare in the United s has taken a turn away fromthe way it was designed. Formerly a program that offered a helping hand, public assistance has turned into a hand out for many of its recipients. Herein, this essay will define welfare, discuss its inception, and determine how it is being abused, as well as what is being done about it. According to Richard Caputo's "History of Contemporary Social Policy: Introduction," welfare began in 1935 as cash assistance to mothers, for their children. Eventually, Caputo writes, "all low-income families" (9) began to take advantage. Now, the definition of welfare includes said cash assistance, but has since added a food stamps program to buy groceries, child care for working families who meet the low income guidelines, and healthcare to families who meet similar guidelines. These are not the only changes that have taken place. The Internet essay "How Welfare Began in the United States" took a more in-depth look at the beginnings of welfare. The essay reads that after the 1929 stock market crash, The Great Depression took its toll on Americans by plummeting "about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers" below the poverty guidelines and "by 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work" (para. 2). Also by 1933, at least 20 percent of school children were suffering from poor nutrition, and about 200,000 boy children under the age of majority left home to wander around looking for work or food for the family (para. 3). The essay paints a picture of dire straits, situations that actually called for welfare, to offer money, hope, and housing to persons who were clearly indigent, and experiencing an unprecedented economic hardship. At that time, families, usually headed by single women, applied for welfare benefits only until they could find employment and become self sufficient. Now, the welfare system is experiencing extreme abuse by those who don't intend to work at all. When people think of abuse, sometimes they mean the percentage of people who work full time or part time jobs, but don't report the income so that they seem to remain eligible for state benefits. That is certainly one form of welfare fraud, but technology has made it much more difficult to cheat in that way, even though it is the kind of fraud that is sensationalized in the media. There is a more prevalent form of fraud, though, whereby many welfare recipients end up abusing the system by choosing not to work at all. According to most studies, the actual act of refusing to work is, by far, a bigger problem than the dollar amounts these individuals collect. In "Americans and Welfare Reform: Work, Not Cost, Primary Issue," 59 percent of Americans admit to knowing someone who cheats welfare, but 65 percent of the population would want welfare changed, even if lying to receive benefits wasn't a problem. While 67 percent of the surveyed called cheating welfare a "serious problem," they were still more offended by the people who received welfare, but didn't work at all. In fact, according to the article, 63 percent of those surveyed wanted officials to pay "surprise visits" to unemployed welfare recipients. Why Most Americans simply believe that people who can work should, and they don't believe that choosing to have children, especially out of wedlock, is a good enough reason to stay at home and collect benefits. The laws are different in every state, but some states don't require women to work if they are sole providers of children under the age of five. If the single mother of four had a child out of wedlock every four years, she could abuse the system for sixteen years, and it would be legal. For those sixteen years, she could choose to remain single, while the state coughs up monthly (bi-monthly in some states) cash payments, food stamps, and medical care. This mother might feel that she is better off taking advantage of the state, than she would be to work for a living. Other single parents find themselves facing similar dilemmas. Some women work, but only 29 to 32 hours per week, even though they are physically able to work more. If their places of employment consider them full time employees at 30 to 32 hours, they would, in most case, become eligible for health insurance. Health insurance, however, means paying bi-weekly premiums, as well as co-pays or co-insurances. Rather than pay for private insurance through their employers, they choose to remain at less than full time status so the government continues to pick up their healthcare tabs. There are cases of women who are technically single, but live with a significant other. Although the significant other might work, and provide some support for his children, states have few resources to track down who is living with whom, making it difficult to discern the actual household income, rather than just the mother's income, so mothers can collect benefits they wouldn't be entitled to, if the couple decided to marry. These are just a few of the ways in which welfare recipients receive benefits fraudulently. Stephen Baskerville, in "From Welfare State to Police State," writes about the government system of welfare being abused by women who choose to have children, but remain unmarried. He writes that in 2006, "Married couples represent less than half the nation's households" (401). He adds that it used to be that teens represented the majority of unwed pregnancies, however our culture has encouraged "women in their twenties, thirties, and forties to dispense with marriage altogether" (402). He adds that as long as men and women have such a sense of entitlement, they will continue to abuse the system. For reasons like these, welfare reform has been in a state of flux. To address concerns like the ones Baskerville brings forth, Karen Uhlenhuth discusses the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. In her "'Healthy Families' Program Aims to Help Couples Emotionally and Economically" article, she writes about the part of the act that received a grant and spent the money "to add training to enhance the relationships between parents" (para. 7). The point of the program is to teach men and women alike about the demands of raising a family. If both parents are aware of the challenges that face children born into single parent households, perhaps they would be more likely to make better decisions. For married couples, counseling is provided to teach them how to settle disputes effectively. In theory, the goal is to keep families together. Two parents living together increase the chance of good outcomes for the children. Two incomes decrease the necessity for public assistance, alleviating some financial burden from the state and government. Baskerville, for one, isn't optimistic, claiming programs like this have been around for a while, but provide few results. "There is little evidence that these programs have any measurable effect on marriage or out-of-wedlock birth rates" (Baskerville, 402). Uhlenhuth's article, written nearly the same time as Baskerville's, isn't quite so pessimistic. She admits that this type of intervention hasn't shown much efficacy in middle and higher classes, but insists the results in the lower class segment can't be determined just yet, so shouldn't be ruled out. In "The Illusion of Change, The Politics of Illusion: Evolution of the Family Support Act of 1988," Luisa Deprez also looks at the evolution from 1935 until now. She writes, "The focus in 1935 was to provide financial assistance to children living with their mothers (or relatives) who were deemed 'needy and deprived of financial support' by reason of death, absence, or incapacity of a parent, usually the father" (107). Deprez claims that the program's "focus and intent" (107) has been skewed. In 1996, President Bill Clinton helped enact the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The changes made were supposed to discourage poor people's feelings of "helplessness, lack of motivation, immorality, and despair" (114). Clinton's plan allowed needy recipients to receive cash assistance for a lifetime total of five years. This was suppose to encourage recipients to seek jobs, or attend higher education institutions, so that the five years allotment was more of a necessity to be used in emergency cases, rather than a permanent way of life. States have used different measures to decrease welfare fraud. According to "Welfare Office Name Change Urged: Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Would Become Office of Economic Support and Opportunity," it is written that Commissioner David Hansell thinks the name change will reflect that people aren't going to be thrown off welfare, rather transitioned into better opportunities, which include work. In the article, writer Rick Karlin writes that New York's efforts are working. He claims, "The number of New Yorkers who receive public assistance has fallen to about 500,000 from 1.6 million" (para. 7). It doesn't help that a family of three, in New York, receives a monthly cash payment of $291. This amount hasn't changed in more than 10 years, Karlin says. Obviously, New York isn't the place where welfare recipients are better off staying at home than working. Staci Matlock examines a measure in the state of New Mexico in her "Bill Would Encourage Families on Welfare to Hunt, Fish." She advertises, "Free hunting and fishing licenses for New Mexico families on welfare could lead to self-sufficiency skills and a renewed connection to nature for low-income residents" (para. 1). She is quoting an Albuquerque legislator who believes that people want to be self sufficient, and will become so if given the opportunity. Matlock's essay reads that in New Mexico, 11,986 adults and 31,053 children were on welfare in 2006. Representative Miguel Garcia, who supports the program, is quoted as saying that not only will the food caught teach self sufficiency, and supplement aid given by the state, but also will likely strengthen family ties, and teach New Mexican residents about nature. Garcia wants to see the bill become a law, so that the largely Hispanic population of New Mexico will be forced to take care of themselves, and improve feelings of self worth. Revitalizing day care programs will also be key to decreasing, or altogether eliminating, welfare fraud. The more income earned by a family, the less likely the family will be eligible for day care benefits. Or, at the very least, if the family does qualify for benefits, the co-pay still might be several hundred dollars per month, more than a single mother might feel she could comfortably afford. Instead of going after full time jobs, higher paying jobs, or promotions, the head of household might choose to remain stagnant in a position, or accept a job that she is overly qualified for, just to remain eligible for free day care. If day care becomes more affordable, however, this segment of fraud could disappear. A letter to the editor in a North Carolina newspaper, entitled "Day Care Vital to Welfare Reform," highlighted some of the problems with the day care issue. It read, "The funding shortfall reportedly began when the state approved a higher reimbursement for day care providers. This unanticipated increase led to overspending of the day care account and, now, the revocation of subsidies for 9- to- 12-year-olds" (para.3). This editorial is speaking specifically of a problem in North Carolina, but these kinds of mismanagement issues arise all over he country. Some mothers in North Carolina will quit their jobs rather than leave their 9- and 10-year-old children home alone after school, or all day during summer months. These kinds of problems invite abuse of the system. If a low-income parent is able-bodied and can work, he or she should; however the parent should be given the necessary tools, as promised, to remain gainfully employed. Regardless to political affiliation, or whether one prefers Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, it is Obama's assertion that health care is the key to a better future. He wrote, "The benefits of the American healthcare system come at a price that an increasing number of individuals and families, employers and employees, and public and private providers cannot afford" (para. 1). Reforming the current state of healthcare is going to be a huge leap toward eliminating abuse that is related to healthcare. The healthcare premiums of many organizations are so expensive, that workers cannot afford to have the deductions removed directly from their checks. Commercials offer lower cost private insurances, sometimes through well-known companies, but these insurance companies still require monthly premiums, they still require a co-payment (a fixed dollar amount to be paid at each visit to a physician) or co-insurance (a fixed percentage, usually 10 percent or 20 percent of each visit), and usually only covers basic needs. These plans also have high deductibles in exchange for low rates, meaning a customer might have to pay up to $5,000 of their own healthcare costs before the insurance kicks in and pays anything. Intermittent payments for office visits, lab work, x-rays, etc., and the threat of large deductible payments, encourage welfare fraud rather than discourage it. It is easier for a single parent to cheat the system, than to worry about the financial burdens of even routine health care for children, let alone emergency visits, surgeries, equipment like hearing aids, or catastrophic illnesses. Obama also promises to "save the typical American family up to $2,5000 a year" (para. 6) and "mandate that all children have healthcare coverage" (para. 5). If these assertions were to become truths, abuse of the Medicaid portion of government healthcare would surely become almost nonexistent. In "When Does Public Opinion Matter" Jennifer Christian wants it known that the Clinton administration is not solely responsible for whatever positive changes have come about. She writes that U.S. citizens forget "the role public opinion and partisan preferences may have played in bringing about these changes" (134). According to her, Republican Americans were among the first advocates of limiting "the amount of funds that each family could receive regardless of the number of children" (134). Christian writes that Clinton wouldn't have ever been able to "enact major reforms" (153) without the help of the Republican Party. In terms of how welfare fraud can be avoided, Christian's point is moot. It is ironic, though, that she is giving Republicans the nod of success for the positive changes that have been made, yet she doesn't assign the party responsibility for the increase in welfare recipients, single families, or fraud as a result of the new mandates. The United States in not the only country struggling with welfare reform. In order to prevent fraud, the United Kingdom launched a massive attack against joblessness, so that its citizens could be self-sufficient and not have to cheat the government. Britain plans to increase taxes of young people, to support the old people. Australia is trying to figure out how to eclipse welfare payments without doing damage to people who are mentally impaired. It is recognized just about everywhere that welfare needs to be reformed. The system of universal healthcare offered in Canada is receiving looks from presidential hopefuls Obama and Clinton, but many say that the Swedish government is the one that the United States should model itself after. "The Swedish welfare state (also called the 'Swedish Model') is based on the idea that everyone has a right to health care, family services, old-age pensions and other social benefits regardless of income. Since everyone is entitled to these benefits, everyone must pay for them through their taxes," (para. 1) according to "'The Swedish Model': Welfare For Everyone." The price Swedes pay about 25 percent of their income taxes to the program, and a "national 25 percent sales tax is built into the price of consumer goods" (para. 11). The system is not perfect. In fact, there is a Swedish word skattetrat, "which means tax tiredness" (para. 12), that refers to the increasing dissatisfaction with the high taxes. The positive note is that if everyone is eligible for welfare, no one has to be bothered to cheat it. There is no information, article, or essay that reads that Americans do not want to help the less fortunate. On the contrary, people do want to help; they just have their limits. The majority of Americans admit to being tired of people lying about benefits to get more out of the government, but insist that those who cheat the system in what can be looked at as legal ways, is far worse. Deciding to have children without the benefit of marriage, is a social choice; however, it is a social choice that causes others to pay. Most Americans agree that a woman should have the choice of whether or not to work while her children are young, but those women should have non-governmental means of supporting their families when they make that decision. For working women who are in low-income situations, increasing childcare benefits, and decreasing the cost of healthcare are going to be instrumental in avoiding fraud in the future. As well, whether it is believed that Bill Clinton's plan is working, or whether it is decided that choosing a system closer to Sweden's is the answer, the powers that be ought to make sure they recognize that offering so many benefits that it makes going to work seem silly, the government doesn't have to worry only about people cheating it, but also cheating themselves. Works Cited "Americans and Welfare Reform: Work, Not Cost, Primary Issue." Baskerville, Stephen. "From Welfare State to Police State." Independent Review 12.3 (Winter 2008): 401-22. Academic Search Complete. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. Caputo, Richard K. "History of Contemporary Social Policy." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 35.1 (Mar. 2005): 9-16. Christian, Jennifer L. "When Does Public Opinion Matter" Journal of Sociology and Welfare 35.1 (Mar. 2008): 133-56. Academic Search Complete. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. Deprez, Luisa S. "The Illusion of Change, The Politics of Illusion: Evolution of the Family Support Act of 1988." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 35.1 (Mar. 2008): 105-32. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. "Editorial: Day Care Vital to Welfare Reform." Wilson Daily Times (NC). (29 Jan. 2008). Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. "How Welfare Began in the United States." (Summer 1998). Karlin, Rick. "Welfare Office Name Change Urged: Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Would Become Office of Economic Support and Opportunity." Times Union (Albany, NY) (23 Feb. 2008) Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. Matlock, Staci. "Bill Would Encourage Families on Welfare to Hunt, Fish." Santa Fe New Mexican, The (NM) (19 Jan. 2008), Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. Obama, Barack. "My Cure for an Ailing System." Modern Healthcare 37.47 (26 Nov. 2007): 21-21. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. "The 'Swedish Model': Welfare for Everyone." Uhlenhuth, Karen. "'Healthy Families' Program Aims to Help Couples Emotionally and Economically." Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Retrieved 26 Mar. 2008. Read More