POSITION PAPER
THE SHRINKING WELFARE STATE:
The New Welfare Legislation and
Families
Barbara J. Nolan
University of Phoenix
Sociology 101
Ron Siddell
March 7, 2000
Barbara J. Nolan
Instructor:� Ron
Siddell
SOC101 Sociology
March 7, 1000
POSITION PAPER
THE SHRINKING WELFARE STATE:
“The
Shrinking Welfare State: The New Welfare Legislation and Families,”(1)
discusses the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 which sets forth strict new guidelines for the nation’s welfare system
and cuts the federal budget for assistance programs by more than $54
billion.� This law stipulates that no person
shall benefit from welfare, either through cash, food stamps or Medicaid, for
more than five years throughout an entire lifetime.� The authority over the distribution of funds for this program was
moved from the federal government to the state level, along with the power to
reduce benefits or the number of years for which an individual is
eligible.��
Conservative and
Progressive opinions are presented, with a definite lean toward the Progressive
viewpoint.� Of the statistics offered,
none favored the Conservative stance, which in my opinion lessens the impact of
the points that are made.�
Among the first
arguments presented, the authors cite a statistic that “�both France and the US would have child
poverty rates of about 25 percent if it were not for government
assistance.� With the generous
government assistance provided in France, the child poverty rate is reduced to
just 6.5 percent.“� The authors
fail to indicate whether or not this generous program has helped to reduce the
number of citizens requesting welfare assistance in France.� I believe the overall purpose of any
assistance program is, or should be, to provide temporary assistance rather
than to be a life-long source of income and stability.� It is the responsibility of any able-bodied
adult to strive toward self-reliance.
Employment
The authors
suggest that current government statistics on the decline in welfare recipients
is skewed due to the low unemployment rates that the US is currently
experiencing.� I don’t think this is the
negative point they seem to want it to be.�
If, as they suggest, the poor lack job experience so they cannot make
improvements in their job status, what better time to gain that experience than
in a job market where employers are willing to train people in order to meet
their production demands?� Once unskilled
people gain new skills and experience, they will have an easier time finding a
job during the next recession.� There
are many of us who have worked our way up the ladder, granted we may have
started on a higher rung, we still progressed one step at a time.
I disagree with the idea of raising the minimum wage level
as suggested by the authors.� More and
more jobs are being moved overseas due to the high labor rates in the US.� It would seem that pushing up the minimum
wage could only force the loss of more jobs.
Fraud and Mismanagement
In my opinion, one
of the greatest driving forces behind this Reconciliation Act was the public
outrage over the waste, yet nowhere in this article is there mention of the
billions of dollars that have been lost to fraud and inefficient management of
this program.�
In 1998, the FBI uncovered Medi-Cal fraud in Southern California that
reportedly may reach as high as $1 billion dollars.(2)� This in just one
half of one state!� In Monroe County,
Pennsylvania, a welfare audit saved $130 million dollars paid out in fraudulent
welfare checks and food stamps.(3)� We see case after case where our hard earned
tax dollars are being paid out to criminals or lost to incompetence.� One of our local San Francisco news shows
even interviewed a group of homeless men, asking the question,� “How do you spend your welfare
check?”� Every single one in the
group sang out “Drugs and alcohol!”�
It’s extremely easy to sway public opinion away from a program that gets
this kind of publicity.
Conclusion
Although I disagree with many of the points made in this
article, I do agree with much of the author’s solution.� I think we do need to spend more money to
help with childcare, providing job training and education programs and health
care.� We also need to reduce the tax
burden on the poor.� As the
saying goes, “Give a man a fish�” I believe this country needs to put
forth an effort to teach welfare recipients ‘to fish’ and to support them so
that they can concentrate on that training.�
�However, I also believe that
assistance should be limited or even cut off to those individuals who are
capable but just aren’t motivated toward self-reliance.
Our welfare system has swung from being a fresh,
well-executed idea, to being outdated, outmoded and out smarted.� It needed to die to make room for the new
program that will certainly be born once the public sees how desperate the need
is.� The American public wants to help
end poverty, but after coming home from a hard day’s work, nobody wants to turn
on the news and hear another story about how a group of unethical doctors has
taken the welfare system for a million dollar ride�again.
References
(1) D. Stanley
Eitzen and Maxine Baca Zinn, “The Shrinking Welfare State:� The New Welfare Legislation and
Families,” American Sociological Association, 1988, reprinted in Sociology
99/00, Dushkin/McGraw-Hill, 1999
(2)Virginal
Ellis, “Warnings of Medi-Cal Fraud Went Unheeded,”� The Los Angeles Times, December 19, 1999.
(3)Mario F.
Cattariani, “Welfare Crackdown Saves $130 Million,” Morning Call,
November 11, 1999.
The New Welfare Legislation and Families