America’s poverty rate has been rising through the past few years, and there has been one solution as of today: Social Welfare. Before the historical aspect of Welfare can be understood it is important to know that Welfare, according to Gosta Esping-Andersen, “functions to serve citizens’ welfare needs and to protect people from economic insecurity so that citizens maintain a basic standard of living” (qtd. in Kim and Jennings Jr.) . Yet, the problem today is that the Welfare system has deviated from its purpose and many homeless people are provided the bare minimum aid. This is a problem to the general citizens as well because as the poverty rates rise, people are required to pay higher dues to the government to fund similar financial aid programs.
Welfare is significant in a larger context because it helps the people of America become independent, and it also represents how the government impacts the people today. But it becomes a problem as Welfare today leaves the people of America struggling and unsuccessful. But looking at American Welfare through a historical perspective helps understand how changes over time helped lead this System to where it is today.By discussing the impact of Welfare on America’s growing poverty rate with a historical lens, one can see the differences made over time and understand how the government’s role in society impacts the lives of citizens through time. Simply stated, the poverty rate in America has been affected negatively by the Welfare system because it disregards the people’s needs and restricts the time one can get aid. These causes assist the poverty rate to quickly rise and when further analyzed, one can see how Welfare’s past has impacted many issues today.To begin, the Social Welfare System’s pattern of disregard concerning the people created many of the issues we face today, especially that of the poverty rate. Juliet Gainsborough explains how the Welfare system has put the needs of the people away creating more problems today.
As mentioned in the article, “To devolve or not to devolve? Welfare Reform in the States”, from the Political Studies Journal, Gainsborough states that “in almost all instances the state still retains control over who is eligible for services and benefits, how much in benefits they will receive, and what types of services must be provided. With this power, the state still chooses to neglect the people in poverty basic necessities like food, and shelter.” (Gainsborough). With this, the author makes clear that she views Welfare to be a continual detriment to society today and through the past. In her perspective, this government program should be aiding the poor in anyway possible, but because of negligence in the past, Welfare has caused the people to be suffering today at the same time increasing the poverty rates.
To further this perspective, Lisa Pruitt states that “several structural obstacles facing the rural poor, including housing, transportation, child care, employment opportunities, and education opportunities” (Pruitt) are those created by the government through the Welfare system in the past which have continued today. Pruitt’s article, “Missing the Mark: Welfare Reform and Rural Poverty”, depicts her perspective as one that is also critical of Welfare. Pruitt perceives this system to grow in the wrong direction from the past, rather than aid the citizens, it neglects them and fails to provide basic necessities, all the while increasing the poverty rate.But in contrast, Mark Greenberg views Welfare as a government structure that needs minor changes today to positively impact the nation’s growing poverty rate. In his article, “Making Poverty History” from the journal American Prospect, the author states that “most people who lived at or near poverty levels was because one-fourth of all jobs in the U.S.
economy did not pay enough…” but the government is trying to “encourage people to get more education, and encourage many to work more”(Greenberg). With his statements, the author perceives Welfare as a negligent program from the past, trying to address the needs of all the citizens and change the poverty rates in a better way. In addition, Lawrence Mead, the author of the article “Welfare Reform in America”, states that “the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996..
.ended the federal entitlement to aid…and gave states more control over eligibility”, but today “emphasis…
tilted sharply toward actual work”(Mead). Mead’s perspective over Welfare is similar to Greenberg. The author views Welfare as a system that may have started out as a flawed program, but progressed in a beneficial manner. Overall, Mead views this system to be an advantage in the reduction of the ever growing poverty rate and to the lives of the poor today, despite its problematic history.Moving forward, another issue is the time restrictions the government placed on the aid a citizen can receive.
In the article “How We Got ‘Welfare’: a History of the Mistakes of the Past.” by Linda Gordon, the Social Security of Act of 1935 is discussed. The author states that this act “limited the aid it provides to a total of 7-10 years depending on one’s position as a whole”(Gordon), but she also includes that “today the organization AFDC, and many others have made the goal to end poverty, rather than Welfare” (Gordon). With Gordon’s article, one can see her perspective that the Welfare program was flawed in its design through the past because of programs such as the Social Security Act.
But because of those mistakes the government has changed it’s ideals and is focusing on reversing the negative impacts of Welfare on the poverty rates. In addition, Harrell Rodgers states that the “lifetime TANF Temporary Assistance for the Needy Families eligibility of less than sixty months” (Rodgers) was provided for those in poverty. But as of today “PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Reconciliation Act states have had to redesign their welfare systems” (Rodgers). It is clear that Rodgers perspective focuses on the positive changes to Welfare rather than the negative past. Rodgers perceives that these new changes to Welfare could have a positive impact on the rising poverty rate through changes of the flawed past.
In opposition, Mark Rank views Welfare as an efficient program with the problem being poverty. The author states “households are impoverished for one, two, or three years, and then manage to get above the poverty line”(Rank). Rank explains that he views welfare as a success as it gives years of aid, yet the people need a short time. Similarly, Carl Sommers argues that the government has no fault in the poverty rates today or the past. Sommers compares data that today, “California gives $698…” (Sommers) per month to homeless and poor people.
With statistics such as the one provided, the author’s view is one that believes the people’s choices are the reason for their struggle, rather than Welfare.In the end, Welfare is significant for the government and the citizens. Alongside impacting the lives of the poor, Welfare impacts the general citizens of America.
As Welfare continues to deviate from its purpose citizens of America will continue to provide more money to finance this flawed program. But as seen through its history, Welfare might have been flawed in the beginning, but has changed as of now. This is a strong argument because Welfare has changed in the recent years by changing flawed programs, giving more financial aid, and trying to help the poor. The past did restrict the time of aid and necessities for the poor, but today it has tried to aid the people in numerous ways. Event though the poverty rate is still gradually increasing, by fixing simple errors of the past America could have a different future when concerning its impoverished population.Annotated BibliographyGainsborough, Juliet F. “To devolve or not to devolve? Welfare reform in the states.
” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 31, no. 4, 2003, p.
603+. Academic OneFile, link.galegroup.
com/apps/doc/A111306321/AONE?u =j0439 05005=AONE=6948c0bb. Accessed 5 Dec. 2017. The main argument of this article is that states have responded to the devolution of welfare at the federal level by devolving authority over welfare policy to local government.
To support this argument the main claims were that: states have devolved authority to lower levels of government, they tend to be states that already had a high degree of involvement of local government in welfare provision, and devolution that has occurred has not generated greater involvement of local government. The author uses historical events as well as tables of change throughout history as evidence to support the claims. The author also uses a historical lens to analyze the progression of these reforms in the states, which also provides how the author’s perspective on these reforms is simply informative as she does not argue as much as she informs and explains the changes that have happened.
Finally, the author’s perspective itself is related to a larger context as she informs how all these past reforms have progressed to impact society today in the way that they have. Alongside the argument, the author establishes her credibility by including her credentials such as how she works as a professor of political science at the University of Miami. Gainsborough has also published an acclaimed novel, “Fenced off: The Suburbanization of American Politics”.Greenberg, Mark. “Making poverty history” The American Prospect, vol. 18, no. 5, 2007, p.
A3+. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A163063456/AONE?u=j043905005=AONE=2 468d1cf. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017 Greenberg argues that the revival of interest in tackling poverty has only just begun, and he supports this argument by stating that there has been a growth of wealth and increased recognition of poverty. The author also primarily uses studies done in the past of how poverty as evidence to show how poverty has been changing to support her argument as well. The author’s perspective on this topic can be considered positive as he decides to remain informative and just display the different changes that have come to society today.
And to do so the author uses a scientific lens. Furthermore, this establishes a larger context as once again it shows how this change has helped and will continue to help people here rise above poverty Finally, this is a credible source as the author has many credentials relevant to Welfare programs. Mark Greenberg is the director of the Task Force on Poverty at the Center for American Progress. And he works at the Center for Law and Policy, where he is the Director of Policy.Gordon, Linda.”How we got ‘welfare’: a history of the mistakes of the past.” Social Justice, vol. 21, no.
1, 1994, p.13+. AcademicOneFile, link.
galegroup.com/apps/doc/A16135103/AONE?u=j043905 005&sid=AON &xid=28c857b. Accessed 30 Nov.
2017. The main argument of this author is that welfare in the past derived mainly from the Social Security Act of 1935, which came with many benefits and detriments to society in regards to poverty, and unemployment. For this argument the major supporting claims were that this act: established the first-class welfare program, it also distanced itself from women and labor movements, and negatively that the women’s movement’s themselves led to the collapse of rapidly growing Welfare system. The author uses historical evidence to support his argument and claims by explaining the cause and effects. The main perspective present regarding the topic in the article seemed to be considerate to both the benefits and detriments of the Social Security Act.
The author also chooses to examine this topic mostly through a historical and social lens focusing on the purpose of this Act as well as its effects on society. This source is connected to the larger context of my topic because it explains the significance of Welfare for minorities in society at the time of this act, and it also discusses the impact of this Act on the divide between poor and rich of society. Finally, this author and source is credible because their credentials are listed in a separate paragraph at the end of the the article including degrees, journals written and awards. Linda Gordon is a Professor of History and Vilas Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Her most recent published work is an anthology, “Women, the State, and Welfare”, which had received a Joan Kelley award.Kim, Ae-Sook, and Edward T. Jennings, Jr. “Effects of U.
S. states’ social welfare systems on population health.” Policy Studies Journal, vol.
37, no. 4, 2009, p. 745+. Academic OneFile, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A215319005/AONE?u=j043905005&sid=AONE&xid=95abbc26.
Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.The author’s main argument in this source is simply that Welfare function is supposed to be to serve citizens’ welfare needs and to protect people from economic insecurity so that citizens can maintain a basic standard of living. Alongside this argument, the main claims were that: a strong economy equaled a strong and large welfare system, welfare studies must be done on a subnational level to truly see the impact and finally, that population health outcomes were and still are affected by income inequality of a society. The author chose to use demographic studies over a certain period of time as well as historically accurate evidence such as describing specific events that have happened and the effect now. Furthermore, the author uses a scientific and historical lens throughout his argument, as he uses multiple studies and connects them to older Welfare reform movements.
This source is connected to a larger context as it shows exactly how the history has affected the population of specific regions, and by doing so further gives solutions as to how we can improve the standard of living for more people. Finally, this was a credible source as the authors have listed their credentials, such as Kim is a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University-Purdue University-Fort Wayne and Jennings is professor of public policy and administration and political science at the University of Kentucky. The authors also list all of their sources, of which a majority are from academic journals. And finally they establish the credibility of their sources by providing the main purpose of each source and the author’s credits for the source as well.Mead, Lawrence. “Welfare Reform in America.” Family Matters, Winter 2000, p. 34.
General OneFile, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A76133942/ITOF?u=j043905005&sid=ITOF&xid=841b4440. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.The main argument in this source is that many major reform movement of the welfare system in America have reduced the number of people unemployed and struggling to survive. The author conveys this argument with four supporting claims: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and finally Medicaid.
These claims themselves are examples as to how the United States has reduced many problems faced in the more poor parts of society. They provide information of how these programs work, and what changes they have brought to society in the past and how they impact our society now. The most prominent perspective in this article, is that Welfare is more beneficial to society than it is detrimental.
Throughout the article, this idea was examined with a historical and futuristic lens, as the author focused on changes occurring at the time and their impacts in bettering the American society. This source is connected to a larger context because it provides information as to how our programs benefit us and would possibly benefit countries in which certain types of Welfare laws and policies are unofficial. Finally, this is a credible source as Lawrence Mead provides his credits such as his career as the Professor of Politics at New York University, and how this article is from his award winning and acclaimed keynote address to the Seventh Institute of Family Studies Conference, “Family futures: issues in research and policy”. Pruitt, Lisa R. “Missing the mark: welfare reform and rural poverty.
” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, Spring 2007, p. 439+. General OneFile, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A165767438/ ITOF?u=j043905005&sid=ITOF&xid=070139a5. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.The author’s main argument in this source is that the federal welfare reform legislation, the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) shows that urban politics failed to consider rural ideals and realities.
The author’s main supporting claims to convey this argument were that, the PRWORA’s focus on work and limits gave individual states opportunity to design programs relevant to their economics and demography, this Act highlights distinctions between the poor lifestyle in urban rural, and finally it considers society’s denial about deprivation and hardships caused by rural poverty. The PRWORA is used as evidence as the author explains multiple parts of the Act. Furthermore, the author’s perspective on this topic is negative and views welfare as a reason for less government assistance and interference. The topic is seen through a historical lens as it talks mostly about what this act did to society and the changes it brought,as well as maybe a scientific lens as it analyzes population demographics and key part of the act itself. The source itself is connected to a larger context as it shows the negative impacts due to Welfare during past and older time, and how that impacted practices we have in today’s society in the form of laws or government policies . Finally, this is considered a credible source as the author establishes her credibility by providing her education and career as a Professor of Law at the University of California. The author also establishes credibility of her sources by giving the correct citation, making sure it is a journalistic source, stating what information she derived from it, and finally the credits of the source’s author as well.
Rank, Mark R . “American poverty as a structural failing: evidence and arguments.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, vol. 30, no. 4, 2003, p. 3+. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.
com/apps/doc/A1 11933181/AONE?u=j043905005&sid=AONE&xid=4b1f1dba. Accessed 9 Dec. 2017. Rank’s main argument in this journalistic article is that people have been too focused on individualistic attributes of poverty, but should be focused on the dynamic of poverty itself.
The main claims supporting this argument are, researchers have only been focusing on the economics, and the author supports this with analysis into the lack of sufficient jobs, examination into the high rates of U.S. poverty, and finally systemic nature of poverty. The main perspective of the author is negative when considering the research already done about poverty and the different effects, and the topic is mostly considered through a scientific lens. And it is relevant to a larger context because it shows how overtime poverty has not changed and neither has society as a whole.
Finally, this is a credible source because Mark Rank attended Washington University and was also a part of George Warren Brown School of Social Work. Alongside that, the author includes and establishes the credibility of multiple sources by stating if they were journalistic, as well as their relevancy to the topic.Rodgers, Harrell. “Introduction: welfare reform and American poverty.” The Review of Policy Research, vol. 22, no. 3, 2005, p.
269+. Academic OneFile, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A132673947/AONE?u=j043 905005&sid=AONE&xid=232ee99c.
Accessed 5 Dec. 2017. The author argues that PRWOA’S impact on poverty rates is significant and a big part of the data we have collected from the past and today. The author supports this argument with two main claims, that PRWOA’s actions have shown how significance this act is, and that this act is the most important act.
The author primarily uses scientific and historical evidence such as data, graphs and charts to prove this point. Alongside evidence, the author makes evident his perspective about this act, which is that it is beneficial and significant in the effort to reduce poverty. Rodgers also examines the evidence from a historical, but mostly significantly scientific lens.
And this source is connected to a larger context as it shows how this one act can affect the poverty rate as a whole, and how implementing more acts such as the PRWORA can benefit the society as a whole. Finally, this is a credible source as Rodgers is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Houston. His area of research is American poverty. The second edition of his analysis of recent welfare reform, American Poverty in an Era of Reform, was published by M. E. Sharpe.
Sommers, Carl. “The U.S. welfare system: due for changes; what’s wrong with U.S.
anti-poverty programs?” Scholastic Update, 23 Mar. 1987, p. 18+.
Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A47 23078/AONE?u=j043905005&sid=AONE&xid=9b680e19. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017. In this journalistic article, Sommers argues that the new policies being implemented to help poverty do not really have any different effect than one’s in the past.
To support this argument the author claims that money is well spent, and programs such as AFDC have come under fire, and to support these claims the author pulls evidence from multiple studies comparing how much money has been spent in the past compared to how much is being spent now. The author looks at this through a neutral perspective as he simply explains the changes and focuses on their effects. The author does most of this through a historic lens, and relates it to a larger context by stating how these past changes had an effect on society today, and how they could possibly affect the future of poverty. Finally, this is considered a credible source because of the author’s background. Sommers is an award winning author who writes many of his journals regarding topics such Welfare, Poverty, Child poverty, and other societal struggles.
Sommers is also an educator at a high school in New York city.