Abstract
The USA has by far the largest number of billionaires in the world, yet it also has some extremely poor people who cannot meet the three basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. Majority of Americans, however, fall within the lower and upper middle classes and the working class. These Americans strive every day to better their social status through hard work. A major controversy in America, however, is how to handle the poor, with one of the common and controversial solutions being welfare. Welfare takes the taxes that have been remitted by working Americans, then uses it to alleviate the vagaries that face the needier segments of the populace. Welfare programs include giving stipends to the very needy, food subsidization to others, and healthcare insurance to others. Millions of Americans, including poor parents, war veterans, the elderly, and those with physical or mental challenges benefit from a variety of welfare programs. The controversy lies in the fact that there are beneficiaries of welfare who are as capable of earning as the taxpayers who are paying for the welfare programs. These beneficiaries get basic needs free, from taxpayer money, then laze around or abuse substances with abandon. Welfare must be streamlined to avoid such excesses.
Introduction
Social welfare in America is both a program and a debate with different idealists holding varying positions on the subject. As a program, social welfare can be defined as any program by the government that seeks to alienate the suffering of the poor and needy in the community, by providing essential services to them (Wiseman, 1996) . The poor and needy can be defined as those people who work but their earnings cannot meet their daily needs and those people who can work but are unable to find work. Children from poor families, orphans, people who are too old to work yet do not have sufficient pensions, the sick and the infirm, or physically or mentally challenged fall under this category (Pavetti & Rosenbaum, 2010) . Welfare programs include providing stipends for such people, tax-relief, health insurance, sponsorship in education among other programs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Social welfare is also a debate with some commentators supporting welfare as fundamental for any dignified nation. Conversely, some commentators argue that welfare is detrimental to the society and the economy as it is the opposite of employment ( Dewey & Jan, 2017 ) . Under employment , people are paid so that they can work, or because they have worked, but under welfare, people are paid because they do not work and might even refuse to work so that they can get paid. This second set of commentators, therefore, argue that it is evil to take away the earnings of hard-working Americans and give it to lazy Americans who have refused to work or are illegally in the country ( Dewey & Jan, 2017 ) . Based on the concepts developed and exchanged in the welfare debate, a middle ground can be arrived at on the subject of welfare. The middle ground entails limiting welfare to only scenarios where it stands a chance to bring positive returns to taxpayers whose money is being used in the welfare programs.
Literature Review
Welfare in America as a subject, and the controversy and debate surrounding it has been the subject of much research, analysis, discussion, and commentary (Day, 2013) . The US version of welfare has been consistently changing and mutating depending on the public mood and the ideals held by the policymakers in power at different times. In most cases, when liberals are in power, more so the Democratic Party, welfare programs are expanded. Conversely, when conservatives are in power, welfare is either streamlined or diminished (Kinder & Kalmoe, 2017). It is a general perception among the people that the earliest responses to welfare programs were consequences of the economic conditions prevailing at that time. Unfortunately, instead of creating programs that would enable the populace to find its collective economic feet, the government began giving handouts in the name of welfare (Falk, 2015). Handout-based programs were counterproductive to the populace in two major ways. First, they negated the need for handwork and self –sustenance, since people realized that they could survive without earning. Secondly, it caused an increased pecuniary burden on the economy due to the need to cater for people who were not making any contributions to economic growth (Day, 2013) . In any government, the welfare programs do not meet all the needs of the people, even in the most progressive communities.
Based on the above, the philosophy on which welfare is based needs to change, according to the available commentary (Dewy & Jan, 2017). Moreover, extensive research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). A huge part of this research is based on the inclusive efficiency of TANF programs as a part of the welfare to work program. These studies were based on the overall efficacy of the different effects of the TANF program and its strategies. Therefore, it is necessary to filter out the different studies to develop a clear understanding of the most appropriate social welfare change that can benefit the masses.
The New Public Management (NPM) changed the vision of social welfare. Currently, NPM is responsible for the provision of social welfare through service rather than by steering the institutions to perform their day-to-day tasks for the government. It also emulates not only the practices of social service but also a greater value to the business (Denhardt, 2017) . However, the concept of social welfare has been changed and has taken a new shape in the contemporary world (Pavetti & Rosenbaum, 2010) . Social welfare has become less of an administrative plan and more charity.
The History of Welfare Reform
The history of welfare in the USA goes as far back as the early 20 th century, but it has been changing from time to time. The modern version of welfare can be traced back to The Welfare Reform Act 1996 passed by the leaders to cease the provisions on welfare, due to the prevalence of negative effects since its initiation. Welfare provisions and benefits in this new era were on the skyline, and to start the much-needed change, the catalyst needed was the Welfare Reform Act (Duncan & Caspary, 1997) . The Act introduced Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Under TANF, mothers would be given a stipend for up to 60 months within which they will have gotten stable jobs and pulled themselves out of poverty. The program would thus assist children and make productive citizens out of poor mothers (Falk, 2015). In 2003, another change to the conditions set in TANF were made with a view to weaning individuals in welfare from relying on the government . Issues such as education and healthcare were tackled under the new program. The general idea , however, was to push the individuals towards self-sustenance (Falk, 2015). Unfortunately, the Welfare-to-Work program was terminated in 2004. The termination was an error since the program was not only effective for beneficiaries but also a good investment to the tax-payer. People were being given interim assistance so that in future they not only need assistance but also become a source of assistance to others. In 2005, TANF was reauthorized and it continued to assist millions of struggling families across the nation .
The Old Concept of the Worthy and Unworthy
Not all needy people are equal since some are needy due to issues out of their control such as being orphans or having physical or mental handicaps. However, there are others who are the instruments of their own problems, inter alia through alcohol and drugs (Heilman, 2017) . These poor people are likely to depend on charity, with some of them considering charity as their right. They are likely to seek help from almshouses, workhouses, and asylums. Those who choose to be poor through their own undoing are a liability and danger to those who are genuinely needy, as they compete with them for facilities in welfare centers.
Government programs must carefully vet those who seek assistance from them so as to separate the worthy needy from the unworthy needy. Any assistance given to the unworthy needy must be limited to a certain duration and calibrated as a payable loan (Heilman, 2017). This avoids scenarios where the unworthy poor always rely on the aid that the government is providing but never consider paying back what they acquire from the society ( Broussard & Joseph, 2008) . The government has a fundamental role to play in social welfare since the obligation is too large for the private sector. However, it must be understood that the monies spent on welfare are taxes paid by the citizens and must thus be invested carefully in a manner that benefits the community.
Welfare to Work
Most people need welfare because they are either unable to work, or they do not have a means of earning. Welfare should, therefore, be geared towards alleviating these problems (Falk, 2015). Any kind of welfare that is extended to an individual who is within working age must be calibrated in a way that it helps that specific individual to find and retain work. However, this has not been the case, based on available research. The National Governors Association and the rest of the groups studied in nine states say that around 40% to 50% still had no jobs when they left the TANF (Heilman, 2017).
Among the programs in the modern welfare that has been geared towards increasing propensity for employment is the child daycare services. The argument behind the same is sound, as it is geared towards assisting women who have little children attend work. Most of the welfare programs towards this end have been through direct block grants and tax credits, among others (Falk, 2015). Unfortunately, the welfare effort has benefited the affluent more than the poor. Indeed, Upper-class and middle-income families comprised the majority of the six million people receiving benefits. Tax-based relief efforts do not aid the poor, since the poor do not pay taxes (Dewey & Jan, 2017) . The fear of health insurance coverage loss is another factor that disheartens many receivers of welfare benefits from working. The benefits available for substantial health insurance to all female workers could be a reason for an increase in the employment rate of all family heads to 16%. They also lessen TAFN loads by 20% to 25% (Pavetti & Rosenbaum, 2010)
The Disadvantage of Social Welfare
Welfare ceases to become an advantage and indeed becomes a disadvantage to the society if it is carried out without a strategic plan. The strategic plan must have short term and long-term goals. Without such definitive goals, welfare becomes a mere waste of money, hence a disadvantage to the tax-payer ( Broussard & Joseph, 2008) . The second disadvantage of welfare is the lack of proper oversight that leads to the embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. Without proper oversight, welfare has become an opportunity for self-enrichment, at the expense of both the needy and the tax-payer (Sabatier, 2017) . To cure this disadvantage, it is necessary to have a sound philosophy and strategic plan for welfare to be developed so that it not only assists those most in need of welfare but also provides for accountability.
Welfare Reform is one of the government's attempts to change the country's social welfare policy. The main purpose of reforms is to reduce the dependents in a family and for government officials to assist beneficiaries in their efforts to become self-dependent (London et al., 2004) . Welfare started during a crisis at the height of the Great Depression. Unfortunately, even after the crisis passes, the approach to welfare did not change. In the crisis, people were assisted because there were no opportunities for them to earn. It is, however, unfair for the same assistance to be provided to the unworthy poor who can work but won’t work (Dewy & Jan, 2017).
Assisting the unworthy poor and also assisting the worthy poor without a sound strategy places an inordinate burden on the tax-payer. Career beneficiaries of welfare avoid looking for work and would rather continue feeding off the backs of hard-working Americans who pay taxes (Dewy & Jan, 2017) . Although before the welfare reform became popular, the US Bureau of Census already stated that the actual amount spent on AFDC was only 7% of the $6 13 billion they have been receiving. The amount was spent on social welfare initiatives, including vetera ns’ pr ograms, housing, healthcare, public aid, and education (Pavetti & Rosenbaum, 2010 ). According to the Children’s Defense Fund and National Coalition for the Homeless discovered that the increase in poverty among children is due to the welfare reform, especially among household females (Laura & Gault, 2003). With the excessive spending claims contradictory to the statistics released by the government, there exists a genuine doubt over the actual motivation of the welfare reforms.
Finally, another disadvantage in welfare happens when the programs are used as a means of social control. Welfare should not be used as a tool for moral tyranny or seeking to control how people live their social lives so that they can qualify for welfare (Abramovitz, 2017) . A lot of leeways has been given to officials to determine who may or may not get welfare, to the detriment of many members of the society. For example, outside-of-marriage children are being evaluated and chosen among the increasing number of females from all income levels and races (Abramovitz, 2017) . All children are equal and must be treated as such in the eyes of the law, irrespective of the morality of their parents. Instead of looking at issues such as morality, officials should consider parental responsibility and the will to cooperate, work, and being self-sustainable in the future . It would benefit the tax-payer more to invest in hard-working poor people as there will be a return in the future (Dewy & Jan, 2017). Due to victimization based on morals, innocent children continue to suffer. According to a report released by the Mississippi Low-Income Child-Care Initiative and Congregations for Children , 90% of a total number of Mississippi children did not receive their childcare vouchers in 1988. In 1997, about 675,000 low-income earners became uninsured due to the welfare reform, and the percentage of child insurances denied were at 62% (USA Families Foundation 1999)
Discussion: Potential Controversy
The thesis upon which this research paper is predicted is that welfare should be reduced and limited only to programs that can provide a positive return for the taxpayer, who funds the programs. The thesis can be considered controversial based on the fact that it relates to the commercialization of charity. An argument can be made that welfare is a charitable endeavor and should thus be based on goodwill , and not a hope for returns. Under the argument, taxpayers will be considered as looking at the poor as an investment opportunity. The argument forming the basis for the controversy above is incontrovertibly right, apart from when welfare is considered as a charity. Welfare is not a charity since Americans do not choose whether or not to give towards welfare (Dewy & Jan, 2017). Instead, welfare comes from taxation and taxation is not voluntary. It is thus right for Americans to demand that their taxes be used in the right way. The second part of the controversy in the thesis is the argument that those who do not qualify for the kind of welfare that will provide positive returns should be abandoned to their fate by the government. Whereas this concept is indeed controversial, it is also right. Indeed, it is in the scriptures that those people who do not work, should also not eat, meaning they should starve. If all Americans decided not to work so that they can be placed in welfare, the greatest nation on earth would collapse.
Conclusion
The research, analysis, and discussion above points to a major flaw in the social welfare system as set and carried out in the USA. It is important to note that welfare is good for the country, but only if the practice is beneficial, not detrimental to societal good. For example, welfare extended to orphaned children so that they can get an education and become productive citizens in the future would be good for the country. Similarly, welfare extended to poor mothers so that they can be able to go back to work and take care of their children is also good for the country. On the contrary, welfare extended to adult citizens who can work but are unwilling to work not only amounts to a strain on taxpayers but also lacks any positive returns. Instead, it encourages those who are already working to give up their vocations and relax while living off the backs of hardworking Americans. Americans need to wake up and realize that they are paying for their own demise if nothing is done in regard to welfare. On the other hand, the practice, rules, and regulations through which welfare is provided urgently need reforms as it is doing a disservice to the American taxpayer. For example, based on the research above, a cross-section of the monies set apart for welfare does not end up assisting the poor, as it is misappropriated and embezzled. The transformation of the welfare philosophy should be accompanied by the streamlining of welfare program policies in order to get the programs to the right path.
References
Abramovitz, M. (2017). Regulating the lives of women: Social welfare policy from colonial times to the present. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315228150
Broussard, A. & Joseph, A. (2008). Family poverty in diverse contexts. London: Routledge
Day, P. J. (2013). A New History of Social Welfare (7th ed.). Boston: MA.
Denhardt, R. B. (2017). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Wiley Online Library , 387-396.
Dewey, C., & Jan, T. (2017, May 22). Analysis | Trump to poor Americans: Get to work or lose your benefits. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/22/trump-to-poor-americans-get-to-work-or-lose-your-benefits/?utm_term=.88189229fb78
Duncan, G. J., & Caspary, G. (1997). Welfare dynamics and the 1996 welfare reform. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ndlep11&div=33&id=&page=
Falk, G. (2015). The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant: Responses to frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf
Heilman, B. (2017). Welfare reform and quality of life: A systematic review. Master of Social Work Clinical Research Papers , 223-229.
Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public . Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press
Laura, N., & Gault, B. (2003). The implications of welfare reform for housing and school instability. The Journal of Negro Education 72 (1); 104-16.
London, A. S., Scott, E. K., Edin, K., & Hunter, V. (2004). Welfare reform, work-family tradeoffs, and child well-being*. Family Relations , 53 (2), 148-158. doi :10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004. 00005.x
Pavetti, L., & Rosenbaum, D. (2010). Creating a safety net that works when the economy doesn’t: The role of the food stamp and TANF programs . Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28521/412068-Creating-a-Safety-Net-That-Works-When-the-Economy-Doesn-t.PDF
Sabatier, C. M. (2017). Theories of the policy process. In Theories of the Policy Process (p. 47). London: Exemer.
USA Families foundation (1999). Losing health insurance: The unintended consequences of welfare reform. Retrieved from https://www.wkkf.org/~/media/70792AA09C4D48FE90EA612E4E13014A.ashx
Wiseman, M. (1996). Welfare reform in the United States: A background paper. Housing Policy Debate , 7 (4), 595-648. doi :10.1080/10511482.1996.9521236
