Demetrios Caraley’s, “Dismantling the Federal Safety Net: Fictions Versus Realities” is an exclusive paper that discusses issues surrounding the intentions behind the dismantling of the federal safety nets. The article “Dismantling the Federal Safety Net: Fictions Versus Realities” was published by the Academy of Political Science in the Political Science Quarterly of 1996. The author, Caraley, lays down the motives that the Congress has in ending these entitlements and programs. Essentially, the article distinguishes the realities and myths surrounding the arguments and counter-arguments behind the Federal social safety nets. He argues that the Republican Congressional majority claims to want to balance the Federal budget by eliminating the social safety nets that are an assured minimum floor below which to support the poor people in America. This essay will focus on evaluating the arguments laid out by the author, which he states to as five fictions and one almost reality and determine their authenticity in regards to the social safety nets.
The first major claim is that the federal government has no authority to fund individual benefits for the poor (Caraley, 1996). In fact, the previous Republican majority congresses have argued that it is a complete usurpation of the States’ responsibilities and it is unconstitutional. The author claims that this is fiction. In fact, there is precedence as to what responsibility the federal government can do and that to which it can override the state and local government responsibilities as argued in the Supreme Court (230). In my opinion, I believe that the author has both the legal and social backing in regards to the evidence. Additionally, “Federal grant programs like AFDC cash-welfare payments, Medicaid, community-development block grants, grants for mass transit, food stamps, nutritional programs for pregnant women, infants, and other children, etc. can, quite literally, never be returned to the states, because the states never had them to begin with (Caraley, 1996).” The fact that all states and local governments are in full representation in congress and the house of representatives with 50 and 435 members respectively emphasizes on his argument.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second fictitious argument is that “You can’t solve problems by throwing money at them (Caraley, 1996).” The author claims that is the same rhetoric governments use when justifying their spending. Some of the driving forces behind cutting and even eliminating some of these programs are an attempt to reduce the wage bill, transfer the responsibilities to the state or local governments. However, the author claims that the most successful and even accomplishments from these initiatives like the antipoverty programs since Johnson Lyndon’s spending to help the poor are as a result of spending more money. Such initiatives helped the poor, adults and children, from dying of starvation “by increasing social security payments with cost-of-living increases (COLAs) to the retired and by giving larger earned-income tax credits to the working poor (Caraley, 1996).” I believe that the author has legitimate concerns as to the motives of the Congress. The fact that these programs are there to secure and provide for the low-income earners in the society is noble move. Trying to underestimate the role these packages play in the economic welfare of the country is prematurely lack of initiative and accountability. However, I believe that there is need to come up with solutions that are more tangible.
Another fallacy is that block-granting and capping federal spending initiatives will advance efficiency and save money (Caraley, 1996). In reality, I feel that this is not a win-win situation because there is no related evidence proving that leaders can do more or are more efficient with these funds than the federal government. Additionally, it is factual that states are autonomous when it comes to giving some of these benefits like the scrapping of AFDC in Michigan State.
An alternative falsehood is that only state and local authorities have the mandate and are in a better position to determine the best mix of taxes and benefits for the poor. This narrative based on the perception that since these authorities are closer to the people they can take on the responsibility. However, “the disparities among city and other local government jurisdictions in taxable median income and poverty needs are even wider than among state governments (Caraley, 1996).” Therefore, when this responsibility falls under the state and local governments, the states with high poverty records will not only suffer economically, but their sources of revenue will dwindle. In my opinion, after evaluating the argument’s basis, I believe that the author is factual because his analysis indicates that when a government chooses what to provide and at what rate, the ripple effects will eventually trickle down to their economic status as families and businesses will eventually move away making the situation worse.
The Republicans in Congress argue that they have a contract with America that is the voters, to implement cutbacks; tax cut proposals and devolution applications in the welfare reform and reconciliation legislation. However, there is no particular contract to ascertain their claims on cutting welfare, Medicaid, tax cuts or tax increments for the poor among others. Additionally, an opinion poll indicates that most voters were not aware of this contract before going to the elections. Therefore, I believe that this mandate that the Congress believes has is just another way to hoodwink the American public by casting doubts on their opponents in an effort to manipulate them.
However, the only reality that exists in this debate is that the federal government is broke. Although this is contrived from the fact that, previous governments were working to constrain the federal spending and reduce the size of annual deficits. All these issues emanate from the issuance of supply-side tax cuts while expanding its defense expenses. Therefore, I believe that this is a result of poor administrations disregarding allowed budgetary allocations and deciding to spend more despite the deficits. In essence, it would then be unfair and unrealistic to punish those who deservedly so require these safety nets.
In conclusion, and after careful evaluation of the issue of dismantling the federal safety net, I believe that that the author has proven that devolution of these entitlements is not beneficial. Punishing the poor and low-income earners for the mistakes made in the past due to neglect and lack of accountability is prejudicial and illegal. This article proves with related evidence on the fictions perpetuated by the Congress and Republican majority to deny people of their rights. Additionally, despite some aspect of truth in their claims, that the government is broke, it is partial and incorrect since this was a decision made without focusing on the real issues.
References
Caraley, D. (1996). Dismantling the Federal Safety Net: Fictions versus Realities. Political Science Quarterly, 111 (2), 225-258.
