Corporate Welfare vs. Social Welfare

Corporate Welfare vs. Social Welfare

It has become fashionable to assume that government-supported welfare programs primarily support the poor. It is also often assumed that these welfare programs discourage the welfare recipients from becoming responsible citizens who are willing to work and take care of themselves. But the reality is much more complicated. There are many government programs that benefit the middle class and the top rich. In fact, available data suggests that more money is taken from government revenues that support the rich rather than the poor. Moreover, welfare programs targeting the poor also support the middle class and the rich. So, the welfare programs in the United States are increasingly taking the form of corporate welfare rather than social welfare programs.

Social welfare programs, as defined by Macionis, are "organized efforts by government, private organizations, or individuals to assist needy people considered worthy of assistance" (43). These take forms of cash grants, subsidies, or food distribution programs that benefit the needy persons. In a more religious sense, social welfare may be defined as "food to the hungry, health care to the sick, water to the thirsty, welcome to the stranger, clothing to the naked, presence with the imprisoned, shelter to the homeless" (Wildman). But the welfare systems -- for example, in the United States -- do not function in that manner because of two main reasons. Firstly, the American society places much emphasis on such values as individualism, privacy, and free markets. And secondly, the government is controlled by the affluent people who cherish these values. As a result, the welfare system in the United States may be described as corporate welfare: "governmental benefits given to corporations that are not available to individuals or other groups" (Lauer & Lauer 178).

According to Macionis, government-run welfare programs have three characteristics. Firstly, these programs target people or activities that the public defines as worthy. Sometimes, the public may decide that certain low-income families or poor single mothers are worthy of support. But because of popular objections to social welfare, sometimes the public, or the government in defiance of public objection, may decide that large corporations are worthy of support since the corporations in general contribute to overall economy and provide jobs to low-skilled workers. Secondly, social welfare programs try to benefit most people. The recipients are not just poor households, the elderly, veterans, or students, but also farmers, petroleum companies, and affluent homeowners who receive support through tax deductions. And thirdly, social welfare does not substantially reduce income inequality. That is because the affluent receive far greater support from government-supported welfare than the poor. For example, deductions the affluent homeowners receive is worth $337 billion annually, which, as Macionis notes, "worth ten times as much as what the government spends to provide food assistance to low-income people" (43).