Republicans will tell you that welfare doesn’t work, that it's government waste, and that the recipients of welfare are undeserving mooches which leach off the hard working in our society. However, the fact of the matter is, that when you sit down and look at data, it in fact does work. The purpose of a welfare program is to lift individuals in need out of poverty, or to provide them with government services so that they can live a more comfortable lifestyle. An example of this type of welfare is social security and medicare. Most people when thinking about welfare don’t consider social security and medicare. However, social security helps over 53,000,000 elderly and disabled people be able to live a more comfortable lifestyle and continue to contribute to our eceonmy. These people are either old and unable to work anymore, or are disabled and unable to work for the rest of their lives. This type of welfare consists of 95% of all government welfare programs.
I would also like to address a number of myths about welfare. The first myth concerns what welfare actually is. Welfare, according to Webster’s dictionary is any government assistance given to a person in need. This is often boiled down to stereotypes of individuals. Some might have you believe that welfare is government waste. That the typical welfare recipient is a person who is able to work but simply doesn’t want to because welfare provides them with such a luxurious lifestyle. However, this stereotype could not be more wrong. The purpose of welfare for individuals in need is to lift them out of the needy state. This is working especially well since President Clinton signed a republican welfare reform act in 1996. According to the department of health and human services, the number of welfare recipients has fallen from 5% to 2%. Furthermore, this type of welfare spending only consists of 1% of federal, state, and local budgets. Therefore, it is preposterous to argue that “welfare” spending is government waste. Furthermore, the stereotype that welfare recipients are simply lazy people who live off of welfare and breed like rabbits is also completely off base. Only the most dysfunctional welfare recipients do this. Firstly, the welfare reform act of 1996 places a 5 year limit on receiving government assistance checks and food stamps, anyone who receives welfare for over 5 years either has job that simply does not pay enough for them to live, or is unable to work for the rest of their lives due to a debilitating illness. Secondly, no logical person would EVER want to live on welfare checks and food stamps. Government housing is not luxurious, and welfare checks are unable to pay even the most basic bills.
However, an attack on welfare is not just an attack on the poor or elderly, it is an attack on us students. Anyone here who receives financial aid from the federal or state government through grants of student loans is a welfare beneficiary. According to the white house web site the federal government loans out $81 billion a year so that students can receive a college education. Imagine how different any campus would be if all of the students that receive aid were no longer able to come here because their form of welfare was taken away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In the strictest definition of the term, yes "welfare" can encompass a large number of social entitlement programs. However in practical discourse, we all know what "welfare" means, in a similar way that "section 8" has become synonomous with government or "public" housing. It means the support systems given to the able-bodied unemployed or unwilling to work and their families. Disability benefits in theory (though they can obviously be abused) are given to people who otherwise would be working were it not for their illness or injury. Still though, we all know what "welfare" really means in terms of policy. Yes, the 1994 welfare reform issue (along with the steps taken in the 80s) eliminated many of the more odious abuses (welfare queens, being an argument often used) in the system. However, many people in this situation nowadays aren't what we would call "rational" in behavior-- spending a disproportionate amount of their income on alcohol, tobacco, and lottery tickets (let's ignore the drug issue here for a moment)and exist on food stamps otherwise. Frankly, I'd think the government at the state level particularly, would do well by all its citizens by scaling back elements of "welfare"-- let's call it the public "dole", with a corresponding reduction in vice, gas, sales, taxation, as the poorest element of society (studies confirm this) spend a higher proportion of their income on these items than anyone else. It hardly makes sense for a government to dollup out tax dollars to people in a program meant to provide them basic expenses and then turn around and take disproportionately more from them than anyone else in taxes on items they purchase with the remaining income they have, supplemented by government funds.
As for student loans, unlike "welfare", we do have to pay those back at interest, Uncle Sam does gain money on them over time. I just cut a check for a payment and a half so I can reduce the interest that'll start racking up and end up making me pay about 35-40% in total than I received in government aid. Anyhow, my disagreement with the welfare system to the poor is the dependency culture it creates (I wish my copy of Losing Ground: American Social policy 1950-1980 by Charles Murray would get here, it articulates that argument) I mean the fact is, even with greater Great Society programs being enacted in the 60s, poverty in the targeted areas kept getting worse. That's one of the things that disillusioned alot of 1960s liberal-hawks and turned them into neo-conservatives by the late 70s.
Also, I got far...far more help from the private institution that was Gettysburg College (paid for by all those terrible terrible rich people and their grants, donations, and ability to pay excessive tuition) in terms of aid than the Federal government. In exchange for which they got a notation of economic diversity and a good niddle class WASP student.
My argument still stands that these programs, including food stamps, public housing, and the like have helped lift the impoverished out of poverty. Point taken on the student loans, you are right I should have used government grants (which help the poorest of the poor get a quality education). I too received more in aid from GEttysburg College (it does have one of the best financial aid programs in the country) and I certainly appreciate the aid I was given and will give back to the school as a token of my appreciation. Certainly we understand that Gettysburg itself views the aid given as an investment on its own behalf just as uncle Sam does. Regardless, I feel that your assertion that welfare "means the support systems given to the able-bodied unemployed or unwilling to work and their families." Is incorrect and as I asserted in my article these recipients make up the a small small fraction of the recipients. However, I do agree with your other assertion concerning taxes. As a democrat I am STRONGLY against regressive taxes, and while my party has been one of the main proponents of these taxes I feel it is a clear deviation from our principles (much like reducing the debt is always a Republican principle until they actually take office :) ).
Owen, I argue that social security is a welfare program but that its a national government run insurance program. People who pay in have the expectation of getting money back if they qualify for the insurance. Everyone knows that welfare is for those who can not support themselves in the short term and the benefits of food stamps are much greater then the cost. Its a good idea to frame it that way if you can but thats not what americans think of when you say well fare and perception is almost everything.
Post a Comment