Saturday, June 26, 2010

PS427: Soaring Welfare Spending?

The Heritage Foundation has a new report arguing against a substantial increase in welfare spending.

The report is linked here.


Be sure to read the reference notes at the end as well. Click the link at the end of the report to reveal the references.


Discuss: What is "welfare"? What programs does it include and what are not considered welfare even though they are social spending (such as social security or Medicare)? Why make these distinctions?

Why didn't the welfare reforms of the Clinton presidency "end welfare"?

How significant is the growth in this category of spending? How much of the budget is devoted to these programs?

What is the state role in welfare spending and how do states differ in their payments for welfare programs?

What are the policy goals Heritage seeks to promote through guts to welfare spending?

5 comments:

  1. Welfare is a system of government assistance designed to help reduce the needs of people during a time of crisis or a period where they are unable to support themselves, an anti-poverty program. Typically, the programs that are included in welfare consist of Medicaid, food stamps and public housing; though, social security and Medicare are not welfare because such people are of retirement age, 65 or older typically, and do not or are not able to work. Such distinctions are done to illustrate those who are capable of working versus those who are of retirement age and do not work. Furthermore, the Clinton welfare reforms did not end welfare for a myriad of reasons. The Heritage Foundation believes the increase in the number of children born out of wedlock to be a leading cause for this rise. It also states how Clinton’s program the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which requires people to work to obtain assistance, was not implemented throughout the entirety of Welfare. This had difficulty in removing welfare for reasons such as difficulty in obtaining a job, criminal issues, and the recession. In addition, the article considers the decline of marriage to be a growing cause of welfare; though, proper teaching of birth control and the importance of it is not described in the linked article (24). The article says lack of birth control is not the issue, yet it neither explains the importance of using birth control nor describes preventive measures such as abortion.

    The growth of welfare could have the potential to be devastating to the future of America in regards to excessive government spending if certain actions are not taken to confront the issues effectively. These welfare programs account for 6 percent of our total GDP and potentially up to $953 billion per a year by 2012.

    In seeking to promote modify welfare spending, the Heritage Foundation is trying to promote the program is a form of abusive government spending that makes people less willing to work. As such, it is seeking to impose limits on its use by requiring people to work at least 20 hours a week to receive funding and potentially be force to pay back the money over time as a loan. Their hope is that by making it uninviting to have a continued reliance on welfare that those who rely on it will see the benefits of leaving it as soon as they possibly can. This is done in the hope of destroying the cycle of welfare reliance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many of the arguments within the welfare conversation taking place on the Heritage Foundation website rely on 'long-term dependence.' While I agree that long-term dependence of a citizen on a government to front the bill for life is not productive, I don't necessarily trust the premise from the study that says people on welfare become permanently dependent on government funding. Rather, I think a majority of people who rely on government welfare programs are willing to work, but might not have the resources to land a job.

    In that sense, I agree wholeheartedly with the importance of working or preparing to work at least 30 hours a week. There needs to be a desire to work, and also a way to responsibly earn the money provided by the government. The idea of loans, not grants, is also intriguing, but it raises the question of what to do when the debt cannot be paid back. Do people then go to jail who would have previously just been on welfare?

    Welfare should aim to assist citizens who are unable to sustain a set standard of living. At the state level, this oftentimes means providing aid to individuals who contact organizations with specific concerns, such as someone whose home needs repair and they are physically incapable of doing the fix.

    Poverty, however, should be looked at differently than welfare. Poverty is a problem with deeper roots than food stamps, or other government aid programs. It is a cycle of life that stems from lack of education, lack of familial structure and lack of job concentration. I agree that, in order to effectively curb poverty, the government shouldn't throw money at the problem. However, it is important to classify the people in need. Some people who are poor or homeless have mental illness, and food stamps won't help them. Some people don't speak the language, aren't citizens or are lost in the system. This is not a 'welfare' problem, but rather an immigration issue. The same can be said for births out of wedlock. That, in and of itself, has nothing to do with welfare, although it may contribute to it. Correlations between low income and illegal immigrants or births out of wedlock do not equal causation, and therefore should not be treated as such.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Welfare programs are anti-poverty government assistance that are used to help citizens who are in need. Most of these are means-tested that provide housing, food, cash, etc. Programs such as Medicare and social security are programs that do not count as "welfare programs" because they are for people of retirement age and those who are not able to work.
    The Clinton Administration was not able to end welfare because of people having trouble getting jobs as well as criminal issues.
    I think that the marriage penalty is absurd because it encourages people to have children out of wedlock, diminishing the importance of having a stable family life for the child(ren).

    I think that welfare programs such as TANF are good programs because they promote self-reliance and teach people to have a good work ethic rather than think they can always rely on others for they're livelihood. Also, it is important for our nation's budget, as well as our state budgets, to not have such long-term welfare programs/plans. During the recession it is obviously understandable and efficient to add temporary programs and aid for citizens who are in need during a difficult economic time; however, it is detrimental to our nation to keep adding programs permanently because we already have a large population that is continually growing. We will keep pushing ourselves further in debt and use more and more of our budget for welfare programs. It is important for revenue to go to other essential programs as well.

    People are willing to work, but many are unable to obtain jobs. So, we should focus on creating jobs rather than giving pay increases and more hours to those that already have them. We should also focus our attention on programs that give people the education and skills to obtain jobs rather than just dish out money.
    The proposal for welfare type loans is also interesting, but there is the question about how to pay back that debt. Will people who are in need actually be able to pay it back? And which, if any, programs will turn into a loan rather than a government hand-out?

    ReplyDelete
  4. At the rate that Welfare is increasing the American economy won’t be able to sustain it and the article tries to stress that the way things are looking if the spending continues the way it’s going. The result will be more individuals becoming dependent on the government and unable to emerge from Welfare. Welfare programs are those that “pay the bills and meet the physical needs of tens of millions of low-income families.

    The proposed solution that The Heritage Foundation article gives is to follow the example of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). According to the article this is the one program that encourages those on Welfare to become independent instead of shaping their lives around the program. This particular program gives incentives for the state to only take on those cases that it can help find employment. So that the only individuals allowed in the program were those that could be helped so that there wouldn’t be a constant growth of dependent individuals.

    The reason that The Heritage Foundation is looking for a change is that with the welfare programs growing in size it was eating up the state GDP. The article states that in 1964, Welfare took up about 1.2 percent of the GDP while today it uses over 5 percent of the GDP. The increased concern and push for change is stemming from the idea that the Obama administration plans to pay out over 10 trillion on various programs for welfare.

    One part of the article that blames the increasing welfare population that is dependent on its services could be explained by other variables. Sure there is an increasing welfare population but over the years there have also been changes in the population in general. Not only has the general population been growing but also the high influx of immigrant in the resent years has helped the welfare programs grow.
    While Welfare is beneficial it is important to give those in this unfortunate position of being dependent on the government incentive to be self sufficient perhaps the example of TANF should be looked into more closely.

    ReplyDelete
  5. At the rate that Welfare is increasing the American economy won’t be able to sustain it and the article tries to stress that the way things are looking if the spending continues the way it’s going. The result will be more individuals becoming dependent on the government and unable to emerge from Welfare. Welfare programs are those that “pay the bills and meet the physical needs of tens of millions of low-income families.

    The proposed solution that The Heritage Foundation article gives is to follow the example of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). According to the article this is the one program that encourages those on Welfare to become independent instead of shaping their lives around the program. This particular program gives incentives for the state to only take on those cases that it can help find employment. So that the only individuals allowed in the program were those that could be helped so that there wouldn’t be a constant growth of dependent individuals.

    The reason that The Heritage Foundation is looking for a change is that with the welfare programs growing in size it was eating up the state GDP. The article states that in 1964, Welfare took up about 1.2 percent of the GDP while today it uses over 5 percent of the GDP. The increased concern and push for change is stemming from the idea that the Obama administration plans to pay out over 10 trillion on various programs for welfare.

    One part of the article that blames the increasing welfare population that is dependent on its services could be explained by other variables. Sure there is an increasing welfare population but over the years there have also been changes in the population in general. Not only has the general population been growing but also the high influx of immigrant in the resent years has helped the welfare programs grow. While Welfare is beneficial it is important to give those in this unfortunate position of being dependent on the government incentive to be self sufficient perhaps the example of TANF should be looked into more closely.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. Spam will be rejected so don't bother.