Last updated: July 19, 2019
Topic: FamilyChildren
Sample donated:

Welfare Essay, Research Paper

On October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The clang sent a shock-wave throughout the economic system. Banks failed. Businesss closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 1 paragraph 1 ]

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and individual female parents with kids already lived at a au naturel existing degree in the United States. State and local authoritiess together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, province and local authoritiess and charities could no longer supply even minimal aid for all those in demand. Food public violences broke out. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 1 paragraph 2 ]

The effects of the Depression on hapless kids was terrible. President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused chiefly on making occupations for the multitudes of unemployed workers, he besides backed the thought of federal assistance for hapless kids and other dependent individuals. By 1935, a national public assistance system had been established for the first clip in American history. A Federal public assistance system was a extremist interruption from the yesteryear. Americans had ever prided themselves on holding a strong sense of individuality and autonomy. Many believed that those who couldn & # 8217 ; Ts take attention of themselves were to be blamed for their ain bad lucks. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 2 paragraph 5-6 ]

In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt called a White House conference on how to cover with the job of hapless individual female parents and their kids. The conference declared that continuing the household in the place was preferred to puting the hapless in establishments, which were widely criticized as dearly-won failures. The accent during the first two old ages of President Franklin Roosevelt & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; New Deal & # 8221 ; was to supply work alleviation for the 1000000s of unemployed Americans. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 3 paragraph 1 & A ; 5 ]

By spread outing federal duty for the security of all Americans, Roosevelt believed that the necessity for authorities make-work employment and other signifiers of Depression alleviation would vanish. In his reference before Congress, Roosevelt argued that the continuance of authorities alleviation would vanish. In his reference before Congress, Roosevelt besides argued that the continuance of authorities alleviation plans was a bad thing for the state. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 3 paragraph 7 ]

In add-on to old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, the Social Security Act established a national public assistance system. Additional federal public assistance assistance was provided to destitute old people, the needy blind, and crippled kids. Although financed partially by federal revenue enhancement money, the provinces could still put their ain eligibility demands and benefit degrees. The demand for federal assistance to dependent kids and hapless old people would bit by bit vanish as employment improved and those over 65 began to roll up Social Security pensions. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 4 paragraph 1,2,3 ]

Since the Great Depression, the national public assistance system expanded both in bravery and federal ordinances. From its beginning, the system drew critics. Some complained that the system did non make plenty to acquire people to work. Others merely believed the federal authorities should non administrate a public assistance system. As the system grew, so did unfavorable judgment of it, particularly in the 1980s and & # 8216 ; 90s. Aid to Families with Dependent Children had drawn the greatest unfavorable judgment. By the 1990s, AFDC supported 15 % of all U.S. kids. In most instances, these Children lived at place and were cared for by a individual parent, normally the female parent, who otherwise did non work. This state of affairs brought on ailments that welfare allow able-bodied grownups avoid work and go dependent on authorities press releases. Some of those knocking AFDC were receivers themselves, 70 % of whom collected a public assistance cheque for less than two old ages. For many of these people, traveling on public assistance was a demeaning experience of fighting through a labyrinth of bureaucratic regulations in order to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their kids. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 4,5 paragraph 4,11 ]

In 1992, Bill Clinton, ran for president assuring to & # 8220 ; end public assistance as we know it & # 8221 ; In August 1996, after 18 months of argument, Congress passed and Clinton signed into jurisprudence the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This public assistance reform jurisprudence ended 61 old ages of AFDC guaranteed hard currency aid to every eligible hapless household humor kids. The new jurisprudence turned over to the provinces the authorization to plan their ain public assistance plans and to travel receivers to work. The act clearly proves that Welfare Reform is necessary to & # 8220 ; construct up & # 8221 ; a society. The provinces are now seeking to develop their ain plans to travel public assistance receivers to work. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 6 paragraphs 3 & A ; 4. ]

In comparing to the United States Welfare System, Sweden & # 8217 ; s public assistance province is based on the thought that everyone has a right to wellness attention, household services, old-age pensions, and other societal benefits irrespective of income. Since everyone is entitled to these benefits, everyone must pay for them through their revenue enhancements.

The public assistance province has been the vision of the Swedish Social Democratic P

arty ( SDP ) , which was founded in 1889. The SDP aimed at constructing a system that would supply workers with wellness insurance, old-age pensions, protection from unemployment and other societal benefits financed by revenue enhancements on workers and employers. The SDP called its vision for a public assistance province the “people’s home.”

The SDP authorities greatly expanded the public assistance province. It provided a long list of benefits for all citizens and even immigrant workers. It introduced a national compulsory wellness insurance system, which was subsequently expanded to include dental attention and prescription drugs. It passed into jurisprudence low-cost lodging, child-support payments to parents, child-care subsidies, a compulsory four-week holiday for all workers unemployment insurance, and extra old-age pension benefits. Most of these things were financed by crisp additions in employer societal security revenue enhancements. But a flourishing economic system with unemployment normally less than 1 % made the new societal public assistance plans possible. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 9-10 paragraphs 1-10 ]

The Swedish public assistance province has all but eliminated poorness, particularly among the aged and households with kids. The typical married retired twosome receives pension and auxiliary payments that about equal their pre-retirement income. This is much more than what a Social Security pension provides in the United States. The infant mortality rate in Sweden is five deceases for every 1,000 unrecorded births contrasted to seven deceases in the United States. Besides, both male and female Swedes live longer than Americans. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 10 paragraph 4 ]

While there is small uncertainty that the Swedish people have benefited from the & # 8220 ; Swedish Model, & # 8221 ; they besides have one of the heaviest revenue enhancement loads in the universe. Today, and mean Swedish working household wages about half its earned income in national and local revenue enhancements. Swedes besides pay revenue enhancements on investing income. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg.10 paragraph 5 ]

In America, the authorities is seeking to pass less revenue enhancement dollars into the public assistance system by seting & # 8220 ; public assistance to work. & # 8221 ; One illustration of seting & # 8220 ; public assistance to work & # 8221 ; would be the province of Wisconsin. Before Congress acted in 1996, the province had already begun major reforms on its ain. Wisconsin & # 8217 ; s governor, Tommy Thompson, together with Democrats in the province legislative assembly, vowed to get rid of public assistance by 1999. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 7 paragraph 3 ]

Wisconsin & # 8217 ; s welfare reform attempt, called & # 8220 ; Wisconsin Works, & # 8221 ; had the state & # 8217 ; s strictest work demands for grownups having public assistance. By the terminal of 1997, all grownup public assistance receivers had to be involved in some work-related activity. Even & # 8220 ; unemployables, & # 8221 ; like the mentally sick and drug nuts, had to describe to therapy or rehabilitation Sessionss to seek to do themselves job-ready. New public assistance appliers had to first expression for a occupation before roll uping any hard currency assistance. As a consequence of these demands, Wisconsin succeeded in cutting 60 % its public assistance caseload by the terminal of 1997. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 7 paragraph 6 ]

Wisconsin wages for both kid attention and medical services for all low-income on the job households. The province besides provides occupation preparation, helps pay the rewards of certain workers in & # 8220 ; test occupations, & # 8221 ; and topographic points those who can non acquire hired into community-service work. [ Bill of Rights in Action, “ Social welfare, ” 1998 pg. 7 paragraph 8 ]

A twelvemonth after Congress passed the public assistance reform act, the state & # 8217 ; s public assistance caseload had fallen about 25 % . A figure of issues had remained:

? Should at that place be lifetime bounds of five old ages or less on the public assistance benefits households may have?

Some people argue against lifetime bounds. They say some parents and their kids may necessitate more than five old ages of benefits because of unanticipated events beyond their control. Others argue for life-time bounds. They say bounds will forestall people from remaining on public assistance excessively long or traveling on and off throughout their lives.

Another illustration of Welfare reform is New York City. City functionaries say that & # 8220 ; many people find occupations and that those who nee public assistance acquire it. Even those who leave the centres without occupations or public assistance frequently go place with nutrient casts and Medicaid that will assist stabilise their lives while they search for work, metropolis functionaries say. [ “ Stiff regulations Gut Welfare Rolls At Two Offices ” New York Times METRO Monday, June 22, 1998 ]

I personally agree with the & # 8220 ; public assistance to work & # 8221 ; policy, because it is one of the best ways to acquire people off from authorities aid. After old ages of having authorities aid, people tend to go & # 8220 ; indolent. & # 8221 ; They are invariably looking for something for nil, at the disbursal of the revenue enhancement remunerators. By acquiring public assistance receivers to work, it provides them with a opportunity of wining, without authorities aid. The less the authorities helps them, the more they begin to assist themselves.

& # 8220 ; Welfare reform has been a immense success in the short term. The U.S Labor Department credits the inflow of former public assistance receivers into the state & # 8217 ; s workplace with widening the state & # 8217 ; s economic roar, and the per centum of Americans on public aid is the lowest it has been in more than three decennaries. Between January 1993 and September 1998, the figure of public assistance receivers in New Jersey dropped by 46 % . & # 8221 ; [ “ Fine-Tuning Social welfare Reform ” The Bergen Record August 29, 1999 ]