U.S. Welfare and Financial Situation

U.S. Welfare and Financial Situation

The situation in the country has changed today and there was little information on living circumstances, experience, health, cognition, and social and emotional development of children even 20 years ago. The information that was available for our understanding of children was also very little and that made it very difficult for us to understand what was happening to children. This resulted in some children being left in great difficulties due to problems of academic, emotional and social nature, while others grew up into responsible adults able to face all the difficulties of the world. The information that was available then was collected by using very well developed techniques and methods that were the results of small studies that were being conducted by psychologists for development. The problem here was that the samples taken were not representative, and thus the results obtained were suited for the laboratory and not practical life. The reflection was that these studies defined more what children could not do than what they could.

Analysis:

Some people are under the impression that it is welfare that causes a major difficulty for the government, but according to Stephen Moore of Cato "Corporate welfare is a large and growing component of the federal budget. These programs have grown almost 10% over the past four years, despite the fact that congressional Republicans pledged an attack against unwarranted business subsidies back in 1995." (America's most costly welfare recipients are Fortune 500 companies) While giving money to a section of the American economy that does not require the money, it also destroys competitiveness in the American economy. The size of the funds used for welfare is as high as $75 billion in all forms of subsidies. When these are eliminated, it would provide funds for the abolition of capital gains tax, or the death tax, reduce the personal income tax, or the corporate income tax, or even provide for a flat tax of 20% for all Americans. (America's most costly welfare recipients are Fortune 500 companies)

While we all agree that the economic situation of the country is difficult now, at the same time the picture as seen from the point of government spending is different. The situation is that all state and local governments are spending more money and employing more people. When they are becoming aware of the current economic difficulties, they are cutting down on public services. According to the National Governors Association, the states are facing the worst financial situation since World War II. Yet, a study by a news organization shows that the major reductions that are taking place are not cuts when one compares the expenditure during the current year with the previous year! The picture is that the states are reducing expenditures from the levels that were approved during the boom time of the American economy. (State, local spending up despite downturn)

As an example, let us take the case of Minnesota. The legislators approved spending based on an increase of 13.4% rise in tax revenue that was expected to take place during the next two years. When the results are about to come, the expected increase is only 6%. As a result, there has to be a cut of $4.6 billion. This means that there has to be cuts from expected spending but no cuts from the actual spending that has taken place earlier. The actual position is that the expenditure has increased even in 2002 by an annual rate of 4.2%. This is lower than the figures that were the results during the stronger periods of the economy, but still an increase. When the concerned figures are adjusted for inflation, the increase in spending is still 3.3%. At the same time, there are large gaps that must be closed and 31 states had to close a gap of $17.5 billion, and this was to be done by June 30 when the budgets end for many states. The next question is the result of this cut down. According to Governors and other senior elected officials, the financial problems are likely to result in layoff of thousand of public workers and cuts in the state operational areas of education, health care and road construction. There are differences between the states and the worst situation is in California. (State, local spending up despite downturn)

According to the Governor there, the state has to make up a shortfall of $35 billion during the course of 18 months. The suggestions were reduction in aid for schools, health care for the poor and elderly and higher taxes on the wealthy. This is certainly making a difference as the spending at the state and local government level has been increasing for many years all over the country, and was not being determined by the good or bad conditions of the economic performance. There had not been any drops since 1944 and the growth had been faster than the rate of inflation from 1982. There was a drop in the rate of spending in the 1990s but the government spending still was on. Even when the corporate profits and cash flow had been declining, the government hiring had been increasing.

Even when the economy became weak the government had still been hiring more persons, and at the level of the states, there had been an increase of 31,000 employees during the course of a year as per the reports of Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is a growth of 0.6%. Local governments had increased their workforces by 189,000 and this represents a growth of 1.4%. These are very high figures, and on the other hand, the employment in private companies decreased by 467,000 which was a reduction of 0.4% of their workforce. The question that comes up now is about the impact of the decreases in workforce, and according to many experts, the reduction will cause a drop in school class sizes, make it difficult for the recipients of welfare to get jobs, and improve the health care facilities for the poor. According to Margy Waller, a welfare reform expert at Brookings Institution, "Government services are often a last resort and cannot be cut without real suffering." (State, local spending up despite downturn)

This brings us to a point where we have to think about implications of poverty on the lives of Americans, even if most of the people do not think much about it. There was a new survey by NPR, the Kaiser Family foundation and Harvard University's School of Government that did a survey and that found only one in ten Americans naming poverty, welfare or similar matters as an important matter for taking action by the government. At the same time, when Americans are directly asked about the significance of poverty, they feel that it is still a major problem in the country. The actual position is that most persons not only think it is 'just a problem' but a major problem. Another one third of the population says that it is a problem, though not a major problem. (Poverty in America)

According to the definitions of the government, now a family of four with an income of more than $17,029 is not poor, but the majority of Americans feel that the level defined by the government is not enough. According to 6-% of Americans, the level of $20,000 a year should be taken as the mark of poverty and 40% of Americans feel that the level separating the poor should be fixed at $25,000 a year. Another important question is the descriptions of difficulties of the poor, according to the people who are described as poor by the government definitions. They feel that their problems are in getting enough money for paying rent, transportation and food. Even when the income levels increase and reach double that level, the perception of the problems remain the same. This is supported by people giving examples saying that they themselves, or some person close to the family did not pay rents in time, or someone they know did not have enough money for food. (Poverty in America)

The reasons for poverty are blamed a lot on the people suffering from it - by about 50% of the Americans. The other half feels that there are circumstances beyond their control which make them poor. The causes for poverty are however well defined by Americans who are within or near the poverty line and they state drug abuse, medical bills, too few jobs or the jobs being part-time or low wage, too many single parent families and too many immigrants as the main reasons. At the lowest levels the cause is viewed to be drug abuse, and the ranking to drug abuse is given at such a high level only by the poorest Americans and the income at a higher level do not think drug abuse is so important a cause of poverty. Another important question is whether the poor Americans really require help from the government, and in general the population seems to be evenly divided in their opinion on that subject. In this case there are differences due to the income level of the person who is replying.

The Americans who are making more than $34,000 a year generally say that the persons getting aid from welfare could manage their own lives without help from the government if they really tried, while the replies from the lower income groups feel that they could not manage. This continues on in the opinion of the comparatively richer group to say that the people getting poverty assistance could manage without assistance as they get the assistance without having to do anything for it. This continues on with persons having little knowledge of the changes in law that has come up. Only half the respondents were aware of the changes in the law. However of the persons who are aware of the changes in the law 61% think that the new law is working well, and the most important reason for it is felt to be the requirement for people to be working to get any assistance from the changed law. This shows the value that is attached to work by Americans in general. (Poverty in America)

It is clear that people want the government to help people who are helping themselves. This is reflected in the huge support that is given to increasing programs for training people for jobs of 94%, increasing tax credits for low- income workers which were 80%, increasing the programs for day care with subsidies which was 85%, and subsidizing housing was about 75%. It is not felt by the majority of Americans that the poor do not work, 60% think that they work. This view has been increasing and the corresponding figure in 1994 was only 49%. This is also reflected in the opinions given by people from the low income group, and they say that 65% of them work. Of course the persons whose views have been taken here exclude the students and retirees. This is also reflected in the views of 69% of Americans who say that there are jobs for any person who is ready to work. At the same time, they also know that the job is not very good, when the incomes are low.

This results in almost three-fifths of poor Americans expressing the opinion that they can only get jobs which will not support a family. The problem of poverty is more in Blacks than whites as 72% of the Blacks have the problem of poverty while only 52% of the Whites have the problem. The same sort of opinion biases due to color extends on to saying poor people have hard lives from about 59% to 39%; outside circumstances are the main reason for poverty which constituted 57% to 44%; the government could eliminate poverty if it wanted to from 67% to 40%; it is harder today to get out of poverty than it was to get out of poverty ten years ago which was 58% to 48% and even the insistence that recipients of welfare also desire to work. (Poverty in America)

Let us now try to relate economic position to literacy achievement of the students as that will give us a clear idea as to the effects of poverty on a long-term basis. For this purpose let us refer to a study done by Rand Corporation and they have found that the most important factors related to educational achievements of children are not race, ethnicity or immigrant status, but are more likely to be socioeconomic conditions. The socioeconomic factors include parental education, neighborhood poverty, parental occupation status and family income. For the purpose of their study they looked at two groups of students in United States and one was a local sample and the other was a national high school sample. The study was conducted in 65 neighborhoods of Los Angeles and there the most important factors that could be directly related were the educational achievements of mothers and neighborhood poverty. (Educational Achievement Reflects Family Background More Than Ethnicity or Immigration)

The study in the national sample was for achievements in mathematics, and there it showed that improvement in socioeconomic conditions among blacks and Latinos have led to a decrease in the gaps in test scores for mathematics between the whites and blacks as also between the whites and Latinos. According to their findings, education policy for disadvantaged children should not be left as the current education policy. This is reflected in the objectives of the current federal policy of 'No Child Left behind Act'. The aim of this act is to reduce the gaps between students who come from different races and ethnicities. It is clear from this study that the most important factor in benefiting students from racial and ethnic minorities will take place when there is greater emphasis on socioeconomic factors than on racial and ethnic differences. When there are just education policies they will not lead to much success.

From the period of preschool to the end of high school the policies for education have to be coordinated with family and welfare policies. There is a common term of 'school readiness and that are expected to mean that the concerned children have got the social, mental and physical skills that they have to possess before they star school. To help in achievement of these qualities and other requirements many schools have programs like school readiness, parenting classes, early childhood intervention programs, public library reading programs, early childhood enrichment programs etc. Their total effect on children is not very well-known, but when programs are started to help poor children become ready for school, they are useful. The total sample in this study was 3,010 households in Los Angeles, and for the purpose of the test a standard math and reading test was given to the children and a reading test to the mothers. (Educational Achievement Reflects Family Background More Than Ethnicity or Immigration)

There was also a judgment of the literary environment in the home through the check up on availability of children's books at home, time spent on reading to children, visits to libraries and the amount of television watched by the children. The behaviors of parents were judged through the disciplinary actions taken by parents and the warmth that the parents have for children. It was seen that most white households had books, reading to the children was a common practice, and visited the library. The problem came up in the poorer neighborhoods and when the mothers had not completed high school that these activities were neglected. The situation of the Latino children seemed to be the worst. They did not have books at home, were not read to and do not use the library. The children who are read to and visit the library had higher scores in reading and mathematics as compared to others. The importance of behavior of parents in terms of discipline and warmth showed up with less behavioral problems for the children. Thus it is clear that programs which improve home literacy environment and skills of parents also improve the adaptation of children to school, and this is true even for children from disadvantaged families and neighborhoods.

For mothers who had a less than high school education, the reflection was in 30% of the students having low scores in reading, and 40% scored low in math. When the mothers had completed college, then the students scored between middle and high in reading, and 90% scored high or middle in math. The results clearly tell us that poorly educated mothers place their children at a disadvantage, and should be prepared for school readiness programs. The link between the education of the mothers and the children in terms of education is in that the mothers understand the importance of the children learning the basic skills early and not due to their own educational capacities. These mothers also probably know the process of learning and thus able to help the children in their learning process. (Educational Achievement Reflects Family Background More Than Ethnicity or Immigration)

The problem is also reflected in the children of Latinos, African-American and immigrant parents, as their scores were also low in reading and math compared to other children. The differences would have been normally attributed to ethnicity or immigrant status, but the study found that the difference came from socioeconomic status in general and mother's education in particular. It was seen that when the children's parents were born outside United States, they end up doing better than children of parents whose parents were born in United States, after taking into account the socioeconomic factors including mother's education. There is a great importance of this finding as the programs of making children ready for school should concentrate on the education of mothers than on ethnicity of the mothers. Regarding the question of neighborhood poverty it is important for giving an idea about the behavior of young children and not their capacity to gain education. When children have been brought up in poor neighborhoods they are likely to show both anxious and aggressive behavior and that part of behavior will not come from parents. The other factors which have been found important for education like mother's education do not change this either.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that living in such an area is stressful for the children which lead to this behavior. There may also be an increase in their levels of stress as the stress levels in their elder brothers or sisters, as also their parents may be high. They may also lead to behavioral changes as the neighborhood may stop them from playing outside. There has been significant progress made in recent years by black children in all three aspects of socioeconomic conditions that have been analyzed in this study - parents' educational attainments, occupational status and income. It had been seen earlier, in 1972 that black mothers had nearly one year less of education than white mothers, but by 1992 this had come down to about half a year. (Educational Achievement Reflects Family Background More Than Ethnicity or Immigration) Thus it is clear that there are various social factors that impede or increase the possibilities of education among children.

The importance of financial support is now being viewed in a very serious manner and one knows that the cash benefit in aid to families with dependent children has gone down in terms of value over the last 25 years, but at the same time, the number of Americans receiving this benefit in 1960 was about 3 million, while today the figure has gone up to 14 million. It is important to question the reasons for this increase. At the same time, this is not the total benefit, but it has with it Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, child nutrition programs, etc. And the total estimated value has about doubled. The total federal expenditure on welfare programs in 1965 was less than $5 billion and now it exceeds $160 billions in terms of constant dollars. At the same time, the incidence of illegitimate births has increased from 7% to nearly 30% today. (Does Welfare Cause Illegitimacy?)

The figures certainly reflect an increasing social irresponsibility to children and when one looks at in totality, it is probably causing the children born to these mothers to suffer. This is only showing up a fact of life in America where now there is no stability of family life, and the inescapable facts are single parents and multiple families. About half of the children will spend a part of their life in a single parent family. There may be various reasons, but some experts feel that this is due to the "interplay between individualism and market economies." (the Changing Contexts of Parenting in the United States)

No single policy of the government like no faults divorce or increased employment of women lead to this. The market economy now views individuals as producers and this makes occupational roles are more important than family roles. Some of the results of this can be seen directly in the father who sits in the office for extra time rather than taking his child to the softball game. This father is concentrating on the pay raise that will come the next time. This is what makes young people say that they can't afford to marry. Certainly their lifestyle will be worse than the common lifestyle of 1950 if they got married, but it is only that the young individual feels that he or she needs more. Increasing values are being given to independence and getting to individual goals as also defining his or her self. Compared to these concepts, the parenting roles are viewed as being less important. (the Changing Contexts of Parenting in the United States)