The 1930’s and 40’s tested the strength and resolve of individual compassion. Finances were tight, jobs were scarce, and long, snaking lines materialized for the simple opportunity to buy bread. The Great Depression had brought about the tortures of poverty. Through this environment a new plan arose, pioneered by a move of compassion through the federal government, culminating in President Roosevelt enacting the “New Deal.” Social welfare became the saving grace of the unemployed, impoverished, and the elderly. Nevertheless, the infusing of government responsibility in the welfare of people may have excused the personal duty of individuals to care for one another.
When it comes to the topic of social welfare, most of us will readily agree that there are individuals who are in desperate need of assistance. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of who is responsible for providing that assistance. Whereas some are convinced that the state maintains the ethical and constitutional duty to care for its citizens, others maintain that support should derive from private parties. Proponents of the welfare state are quick to point that congress holds Constitutional authority to use tax dollars to provide for the general welfare of citizens. However, one must define the literal translation of general welfare when given that the same document identifies only the right to pursue happiness and not an entitlement to it. Bureaucrats commonly direct attention to the overwhelming need of individuals who would otherwise not progress from the current financial quagmire engulfing them, yet statistics continue to show the impoverished populaces are not making strides toward self-sufficiency. The establishment of the welfare state in America has proved to be counterproductive in terms, however, it cannot be said that socially policy has never been needed.
The welfare state is a government concept where the state plays the primary role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. Modern welfare programs derive their strength from this very model, but where did the need and authority for such programs originate? Jim Manzi, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute observes that the necessity of welfare programs stemmed from the conditions of the early 20th century where poverty and starvation were common throughout America (2010, para. 6). These conditions inevitably ushered in vast welfare legislation from 1933 to 1936, capped by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” which brought taxpayer relief to the unemployed and poor, promoted labor unions, and created social security. However, Manzi argues the continuance of welfare given that the conditions prevalent in that day do not exist currently (2010, para. 16). Opponents may be quick to cite that need to any degree should fall within the social responsibility of the state; the Constitution guarantees the provision of government resources to the general welfare of its people. However, the relinquishing of individual responsibility has led to vast misinterpretation of the founding rights of this state.
According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress possesses the power to “…provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Still, liberal interpretation within this passage is contrary to the context of the entire document. The remainder of Section 8 only identifies general welfare as the provision of the monetary system, establishment of post offices and roads, the progress of science and the arts, and the punishment of piracy and felonies. As Steven Voigt identifies in his article on the General Welfare Clause, “The founding fathers agreed that [it] is a limitation on the preceding taxation clause and not its own independent grant of power” (2010, p. 545). The preamble of the Constitution lays the foundation of what the founding fathers were implying by determining first the establishment of justice, insurance of domestic tranquility, provision of common defense, and the promotion of the general welfare. Professor and Chairman of Political Science at Radford University, Matthew J. Franck, alludes to Abraham Lincoln as identifying the role of government in individual welfare to be contained within the Declaration of Independence. Franck maintains that the “pursuit of happiness” is the peoples right as opposed to the right of happiness itself, later stating that the intended role of government was limited (2010, para. 2). Therefore, individual opportunity derives not from monetary benefit, but from free market and the freedom of every citizen to pursue their ideals. Yet, government spending bends markedly toward social welfare over creation of opportunity.
Those in favor of welfare will point to a relatively low 15.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) relegated to social assistance. On the other hand, that amounts to $2.34 trillion annually, or roughly $7,536 per person in the U.S. As Jim Manzi states, “The welfare system represents the majority of government spending in most modern, advanced nations” (2010, para. 9). Even considering the staggering amount spent on these programs, very little finds its way into the hands of those who actually require assistance. Of the nearly 14 million people unemployed nationally in 2007, a meager provision of $32.2 billion in unemployment insurance was allotted, roughly $2,322 per person. Despite constant reforms to social programs, the burden of support is too widespread for the government to cope with. However, the Census Bureau indicated that the disposable personal income per person in 2007 was $33,706; an amount almost five times larger than the figure determined through government provision. The question then remains as to whether the government is best equipped to run social welfare. The state fails in its attempt to provide because it cannot truly determine individual need and derives only a distant impression of its own citizens. The greatest clarification of personal need arises from the relationship of the person standing next you.
Michael Sherraden, a Professor of Social Development, contends that the problem with privatized benefits is that they are “regressive” and create social exclusions as the wealthy receive the greater share of responsibility. Sherraden indicates that such a model would isolate the state as the driving factor in creating “asset inequality” (2008, para. 11). On the contrary, the state currently drives social inequality by forcing the burden onto the middle class while not correcting the underlying issue; like bandaging a broken leg. To fix the problems inherent in society, one must address the root cause leading to the need of welfare. For instance, Britain boasts the highest dedication of its GDP to social assistance while the rate of “social mobility” fails to progress; individuals are not moving out of poverty (Saunders, 2010, para. 11). The solution comes in the form of developing solid assets within the economic realm of those impoverished. Sherraden attests, “Inclusion of everyone in asset-based policy will reduce social inequality and divisions” (2008, para. 1). The insertion of something tangible within the reach of those in need will foster an environment of sustainability in addition to negating personal abuses. If businesses are given the capital and resources to expand their level of employment, an influx of available jobs will stem the tide of employment and thereby assist in remedying the increasing level of poverty.
Currently, an incongruity exists in the area of employment. Despite Welfare to Work programs (President Clinton’s 1997 welfare reform) adopted in many countries, unemployment continues to rise. In Britain there are currently 450,000 job vacancies while 1.4 million “working-age” individuals are receiving social benefits including unemployment (Saunders, 2010, para. 7). The problem has too commonly been attributed to the individual in terms of work ethic and values while the root cause is in those jobs available rarely generating enough income to move out of poverty. The New York Times reported that only a third of the individuals who contacted a welfare agency held jobs four years later. Few of those who succeeded generated enough in benefits and pay to change their circumstance (Eckholm, 2006, para. 13). Therein lays the stumbling block; while society wants those on welfare to move back into the workplace, the employment available prevents welfare recipients from generating sustainable income. Part of the reason for this paradox is that welfare recipients are not being equipped to move back into the marketplace. No company wants to take the risk of hiring an individual whom they do not perceive to have viable skills, experience, or the work ethic needed to succeed (Pear, 1997, para. 12). However, two solutions exist in remedying the current problem.
First, if the same level of welfare spending were redirected to the generation of small businesses, an employment environment of supply and demand would alter the field. The paradigm exists in the fact that in generating more jobs than there are seekers, then competitive wage redistributes the level of wealth among all employees. Britain’s answer for their welfare crisis is to mandate work application, acceptance, and activity among all those receiving benefits with the penalty of losing allowance for a minimum of three months. In conjunction, long term jobless will be required to participate in unpaid community work (Saunders, 2010). The error is in believing that these mandates will spawn any type of change in the social-economic standing of individuals. Another potential solution to employment is to ensure those on welfare are enrolled in trade schools or college courses. If the lower income workforce is educated and made a more viable employment option, the result would be an increased probability of long-term employment. Yet, government focuses predominantly on the control aspect of social welfare as opposed to determining a solution.
“Provider Capture”, the transformation where public benefactors and servants become political assets, is a term whose use is becoming widespread. A common display of it resides in teachers’ unions who manipulate the school system for their own political and self interests (Manzi, 2010, para. 10). The idea derives from the necessity to perpetuate the positive perception of social programs. Businesses are given tax breaks and incentives to hire particular demographics as are state programs. Overall, the goal is to ensure that funding will continue to grow throughout the government sector. The only means of achieving this goal is to flood the voter pool with people who are receiving the most out of their benefit, unions. What was once a much needed program has become a method of state control as the government can imply certain restrictions and recommendations in relation to candidate votes, potential legislation, and monetary distribution. As Idit Weiss-Gal and John Gal deduced in their studies, a large percentage of those involved in social work would prefer increased government spending as opposed to tax cuts (2007, p. 355). The creation of a dependant labor force allows the state to justify, through votes, the increase and deregulation of government spending. A number of experts will argue that increased spending will be for the greater good of all Americans, yet those involved in social work tend to favor increases in education, pensions, and social services over law enforcement, cultural expansion, and the military (Weis-Gal, 2007, p. 355). While no one would argue the merit in expanding educational funding, the argument in cutting police spending, given the shortages in county and state officer coverage, arises as an odd choice when pensions are placed at a higher priority. The welfare state thrives on a “me-first” mentality that causes the separation of individual responsibility and leads to a dependency on a system designed to continue its exponentially growing burden of debt.
To combat the ballooning state budget, legislators often turn to creative and unconventional means. Despite countless reforms to social welfare none have provided a viable long term option. Again, the government has fought to resolve this issue through control. The New York Times (1991) printed an article addressing a Kansas politician who put forth legislation that the state provides monetary reward to welfare mothers who use a long term contraceptive called Norplant (Lewin, para. 1). Fortunately the bill was rejected due to public influence, yet the government has turned to subtler means of population control. The Welfare Reform Academy at the University of Maryland has documented the success of current programs, typically guised as nurse consultations. According Glenn Lowry, “…home-visitation programs provided a greater number of unambiguous, normative messages that becoming pregnant again is not desirable” (1998, para. 57). By laying aside personal responsibility for others, power has been granted the state to mandate even the simple freedom of procreation. When the state becomes the provider, it also becomes the entity demanding compliance with its wants and desires. In this way, the system is counter-productive; a rending occurs in the humanistic perception of every individual. Welfare recipients are no longer people, but numbers and figures to be pinched and squeezed into spreadsheets for individual political gain.
There are those who would say that the end justifies the means. But to what end is the focus of the state? The current systems have not shown to increase employment or perpetuate any sustainable option of income. Furthermore, the impact is being felt doubly by the next generation. An increasing number of children, whose parents are recipients of welfare, will grow up in households where no one has held employment (Saunders, 2010, para. 6). The system becomes self replicating as the next generation will spawn another more dependent than the last. As the burden increases upon the state, more general funding will require reduction. Yet, the children are not only being set up for dependency, but recent information has come to light that they are increasingly becoming victims of abuse. As Erik Eckholm reported, “…the most alarming finding was that because of neglect or abuse, a child was removed from the home of one in every six parents during the five years after they had applied for welfare” (2006, para. 5). Regaining control of parental responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of those closest to the problem. Those who are unemployed generally develop problems with low self-esteem, a condition that may lead to child abuse. Yet, the people who can make a difference are all throughout the community; as the proverb says, it takes a village to raise a child.
Overall, the effectiveness of current social remedy must be measured in the perception of those who it intends to help. Social welfare was designed to assist people who could not otherwise alter their situation by personal means. If a program is to be judged on its merit, then the proper role is to question those receiving the benefit. Interestingly, those most critical of social welfare are those who use it: Single parents, unemployed, women, and pensioners (Muuri, 2010, pp. 187-9). The message coming from the people who need the benefit the most is that the services are not adequately meeting their needs and the level of benefit is too low (Muuri, 2010, p. 192). The reason for this apparent disparity is the dissociation the government has with the individuals it seeks to help. Where the greatest change could take place in social reform is to lay the responsibility of care on the shoulders of each person’s neighbor. Those who are closest to a person are typically in the best position to determine economic need and general welfare. Unfortunately, people have forgotten this role. The result is that an increasing number of abuses are taking place across the entire realm of government care, exemplified in the rapidly increasing focus of the poor quality of elderly care (Muuri, 2010, p. 191). If we continue to turn an eye away from personal responsibility, then the blame rests on our shoulders for the failures of the system.
The solution to the ineffective and unfair system of social welfare is to recall that every individual must shoulder the burden of their brother, father, and neighbor. If the task is left to bureaucrats and politicians, we must not be surprised at an environment of disconnection and manipulation. When it comes to the protection and provisions of resources, every person has the right and authority, and more so responsibility, to stand up for others. Steven Voigt puts it eloquently in saying, “The Constitution stands above men, and it stands above all other laws, to protect men from men” (2010, p. 558). We ought to more closely scrutinize a document founded by men who cared about the welfare of their fellow man. People must, at all costs, put forth the determination and effort necessary to love and care for others. Yet, if no change arises, the people of this nation should be prepared for the repercussions. Taxes will rise, poverty will increase, unemployment will continue to get worse, and the government will continue to grow in power and authority. Let it not be said that we stood by while this nation crumbled due to the incivility and uncaring attitude which now permeates our culture.
References
Eckholm, Erik (2006). For the neediest of the needy, welfare reforms still fall short, study says. The New York Times, p. 18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Franck, Matthew J. (2010). The lawless welfare state: It is unconstitutional, but the remedy will come from the people. National Review, p. 36. doi: GALE/A225938289.
Lewin, Tamar (1991). A plan to pay welfare mothers for birth control. The New York Times, p. 9. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Lowry, Glenn C. (1998). Preventing subsequent births to welfare recipients. Preventing Subsequent Births to Welfare Mothers, p. 2. Welfare Reform Academy. University of Maryland. Retrieved from: http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/ eval/toc.shtml.
Manzi, Jim (2010). Unbundle the welfare state: The next step in capitalism’s evolution. National Review, p. 30. doi: GALE/A243527653.
Muuri, Ann (2010). The impact of the use of the social welfare services or social security benefits on the attitudes to social welfare policies. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(182-193). Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Pear, Robert (1997). Clinton will seek tax break to ease path off welfare. The New York Times, p. 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Saunders, Doug (2010). Britain to force welfare recipients to seek work. Toronto, Canada: Globe & Mail, p. 1. doi: GALE/A241924474.
Sherraden, Michael (2008). Low-income families should be encouraged to build their own assets. Welfare. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. doi: GALE/EJ3010173283.
Voigt, Steven T. (2010). The general welfare clause: An explanation of original intent and constitutional limits pertaining to the rapidly expanding federal budget. Creighton Law Review, 43(2), 543-562. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Weis-Gal, Idit, and John Gal (2007). Social workers attitudes toward social welfare policy. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4), 349-357. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
No comments:
Post a Comment