Welfare Mess Despite the Fact

¶ … Welfare Mess

Despite the fact that the United States is one of the most industrious and wealthy countries in the world at this time, there are millions of American citizens who live in poverty. In order to cope with this phenomenon, the American government has gradually created a social safety net that lifts many out of an otherwise dismal situation. However, it is interesting to note that 'the middle class, not the poor, is the major beneficiary of the nation's social welfare spending' (Dye, 92). Ironically, 'over two-thirds of all Americans are skeptical about the needs of most welfare recipients' (Zuckerman, 1). While they support programs that directly benefit themselves, the middle class generally does not favor those programs that aid the poor. It therefore comes as no surprise that recent reforms target what are perceived as overly generous welfare packages.

Many Americans believe that means-tested programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and SSI, are too liberal and abused by their recipients. Such individuals refer to these conditions as the 'welfare mess'. In other words, they believe that large numbers of people rely on the government to support them for extended periods of time. Some welfare recipients are 'born into' this system, which is understandably viewed as an unfavorable circumstance by the majority of Americans. As a result, they wish to cut government spending and taxes by eliminating or reducing such welfare programs. It is interesting, though, that these same groups of people who demand less means-tested programs favor and wish to increase non-means-tested programs such as Social Security and unemployment compensation.

Due to the political power that this group of voters yields, welfare reforms keep intact those programs that provide assistance to the middle class.

There exist controversies over an accurate definition of poverty. The government defines poverty in dollars terms that rise as inflation does; currently, a family of four whose total yearly income is '$19,350' (Federal Register, 8374) or less is considered poor.

There are liberal and conservative critics of this definition of poverty. The former claim that that it is underestimated while the latter contend that it is overestimated. Liberal critics state that the estimates include government assistance without which many more Americans would be considered poor. Conservative critics argue that assets and unreported income are overlooked in calculations, which should be included in determining one's financial state. A prudent definition is one that includes not only cash income, from both employment and government, but also a fair estimation of one's wealth and financial needs.

As a result of the controversial and oftentimes conflicting definitions of poverty, it seems logical that identifying the poor is also an elusive task. Despite this, however, there are some groups of Americans that are irreputedly classified as poor. These groups are usually younger rather than older. This is due to the fact that the latter has had a lifetime of opportunity to accumulate wealth, such as savings and mortgage-free homes. What's more, 'poverty is most common among female-headed families' (Dye, 96). Conversely, families with two parents have a greater chance of avoiding poverty altogether. Blacks and Hispanics find themselves in poverty more so than Whites. Poverty many times is a temporary condition. In other words, when a person or family falls below the poverty line, they tend to rise above it at some point in the future. Considering the abovementioned groups, it is reasonable to say that young minorities who come from single-mother homes comprise the majority of those in transitory poverty.

Attempts to reform welfare are inherently limited as some portions of it are, as previously stated, bound for the middle class. Take, for example, Social Security. It 'is such a politically volatile topic that presidents have resorted to independent and nonpartisan commissions to recommend reform, rather than undertake to initiate reforms themselves' (Dye, 105). The programs that benefit the middle class tend to largely escape the grasp of serious reformation. As a result, those programs that benefit the truly needy are usually the targets of welfare reform.

In 1996, President Clinton's administration enacted a set of welfare reforms called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The main goals of these reforms were to reduce the number of welfare recipients and limit the length of time they can receive benefits. The principal thrust was to move welfare recipients into the workforce, thereby making them self-sufficient and, it was hoped, more likely to rise above the poverty line. It appears as though some objectives were met. 'The number of welfare recipients in the nation dropped by over half following welfare reform' (Dye, 110). What's more, this 'welfare to work' movement continues as in 2002, President Bush 'asked Congress to further strengthen the work requirements in the TANF program' (Dye, 111).