Asa Result Of Federal Requirements Welfare Reform example essay topic

The poor are everywhere it seems. They are on the street corner, in the local 7 Eleven, and in the plaza. Sometimes I get sick of them and even angry with them when they pester me for money. I ask myself, 'Is the best way to deal with poor, to give them money from my pocket?' It's obvious that other people have given them money from their pockets at different times. If no one had ever given them money, then these people wouldn't be standing here asking for money. The fact is, many poor people ask for money because they know they can get money that way.

For most of the last 70 years our government has indirectly given the poor money from our pockets, through taxes and welfare. Not surprisingly, people have continued to ask for money. For most of those 70 years welfare fed the mentality that the best way to get money was to ask. I believe welfare as it was first started, failed miserably and created millions of dependents in poverty instead of independents above poverty. The welfare reform of 1996, I believe has helped the poor escape from the trap of poverty and is a more beneficial way of dealing with the poor. The idea of the United States government assisting the poor financially, originated nearly 70 years ago (Modern Welfare Programs).

The depression was in full flux and the American people were demanding help from the government. Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the first federal poverty assistance act called Aid to Dependent Children Act in 1935 (Background: Time for a new Approach). This laid the foundation of the current government entitlement program now called welfare. World War II brought thousands of jobs to America and slowed the growth of the entitlement program. A vast majority of people were employed either directly by the government or through other war related jobs. After the war the economy held strong for the next ten years (Modern Welfare Programs).

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy raised the current welfare payments and renamed the program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Kennedy allowed states to require work in order to receive welfare, but didn't require it. Kennedy also laid out the new goal for welfare in America, it was to "end poverty, not just alleviate poverty" (Background: Time for a new Approach). Kennedy said welfare should be "a hand up, not a hand out. ' Welfare continued to change with President Lyndon B. Johnson.

He declared a "war on poverty " in 1965 and welfare spending increased dramatically over the next 30 years (Background: Time for a new Approach). In 1965, about 14 percent of Americans were living below the poverty line. After 30 years and nearly 6 trillion dollars in spending the poverty rate was actually up to 15.2 percent in 1996. According to cnn. com, in 1994, Republicans were given control of both Houses of Congress. One of the first priorities on their agenda was to address the growth of the welfare entitlement program. Early in their term President Clinton proposed idea for reforming welfare.

He proposed setting a two-year time limit for welfare recipients. He also wanted to spend another 9.3 billion in Federal money to create more Federal jobs welfare recipients could apply for. The Republicans resisted the idea of expanding the Federal Government's role in welfare and in 1996 made a counter proposal, which was eventually passed through Congress and vetoed twice by President Clinton. In the summer of 1996 Congress again passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, and in July President Clinton agreed to sign it into Law.

This law is what we now call Welfare Reform (Background: Time for a new Approach). According to Health and Human Services own Website, The cornerstone of Welfare Reform was the giving of TANF Block Grants to individual states to help their poor. The current law allows states to use this money in any manner 'reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of TANF' (Major Provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996). The goals of TANF are to, 'To provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families' (Major Provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996). States were required to submit a plan to the Federal Government outlining how they were going to help welfare applicants and recipients find work. The Government had to approve of the plan for states to receive money.

In order to keep receiving the full amount of money from the Federal Government, states now are required to maintain a minimum number of work participation rates. In 2002, states were required to have 50% of single parent homes on welfare working at least 30 hours a week and 90% of two parents homes working at least 35 hours a week. To reach that goal states are allowed to spend the money they have in anyway they want to. States are now free from Federal bureaucracy and able to use whatever means necessary to help people get work (Major Provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996). States have exercised their broad powers in order meet the Federal requirements.

Now, most states have transformed welfare offices into job placement centers for the poor. They have used all the resources available to help the poor find jobs, in order to meet the requirements set by the Federal Government. Asa result of Federal requirements welfare reform has been successful in causing a decline in the number of people dependent on welfare to survive, but has it helped people move above the poverty line? Are there less poor people now than there were before Welfare Reform?

Ron Haskins states in an article entitled 'Welfare Reform is Working' in the book, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Social Issues, 11 TH Edition, that he believes that welfare Reform has helped move the poor off government entitlement and out of poverty. He went across the country to see if states were really helping people escape poverty by helping welfare applicants find jobs. Ron started in Long Beach California; here he visited a former welfare office. The office had been turned into a job placement center for welfare applicants. Ron met with some business owners who told of how they had been able to hire welfare applicants. As he toured California Ron heard how over a 10-month period, Los Angeles's welfare roles dropped over 100,000.

This was the first drop in welfare roles in Los Angeles's history. In Maryland, he saw more drastic reductions in welfare roles. He says, 'Welfare declines like these are completely without historical precedent The national roles have shrunk 40 percent since their peak... The highest previous decline was 8 percent' (Finsterbusch 212). He also sights recent data that shows a raise in the employment of unwed mothers since welfare reform and the decline in out of wedlock births as a result of welfare reform. Haskins continues by sighting statistics that show a decrease in welfare roles has not led to an increase in the amount of people living in poverty.

In fact, he sights U.S. Census statistics showing a decline in children's poverty. Also he sights a study by the Office of Management and Budget that found, 'single mothers living in the poorest 40 percent of U.S. households received a total of 4 Billion less in welfare income in 1997 than in 1993... But their earned income increased by 4.3 Billion. ' As a result of these statistics showing the decline in welfare roles as well as the decline of children living below the poverty line Haskins concludes that welfare reform has been a success. Karen Houppert states in an article in the same book entitled, 'Your Not Entitled' that she believes that welfare reform has had harmful consequences on the poor and that in the end the poor would be better off without welfare reform. Houppert tells stories of the poor losing their Medicaid because states are 'failing to fulfill their legal obligation to the poor.

' Her basic argument is that the old welfare system was much simpler than after welfare reform. She states, 'everyone who applied and qualified got aid' and argues that now states are refusing to give qualified applicants for welfare their entitlements. She sights a 1997 study showing that, 'an estimated 675,000 low-income people have become uninsured as a result of welfare reform; the majority (62 percent) of those were children who should never have lost their insurance' (Finsterbusch 217). Houppert blames this crisis on states not informing welfare applicants that they are entitled to some medical benefits even if they get a job and aren't on welfare. She says that states are doing this because of the emphasis welfare reform has put on ending people's dependence on the government. In order to meat federal mandates she says states have illegally withheld medical and monetary benefits from qualified applicants to boost statewide welfare statistics.

Houppert also shows how different states interpret the law differently and try hard to cut welfare benefits to as many people as they can. She concedes that states have been given the authority to spend there grant money the way they see fit as long as welfare roles are cut, but disagrees with the latitude that the Federal Government as given the states. Her point is that states have been given to much latitude in how they spend their money. She concludes her argument that welfare is failing by citing more statistics. She states, '40 -50 percent of those who left the welfare roles did not have a job, and 'most of those jobs [held by former recipients] pay between $5: 50 and $7 an hour... not enough to raise a family' (Finsterbusch 223).

Her point is that the poor are getting poorer under welfare reform because it no longer guarantees entitlements to everyone. I personally believe that welfare reform should be continued for both Biblical / theological and practical reasons. Biblically and theologically I don't believe in entitlement programs that don't include some sort of work to receive the entitlements. In Genesis 3 God tells Adam his role as a fallen human. God says, 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you and you will eat the plants of the field.

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground... ' (Genesis 3: 17-19). I believe this passage lays out the foundation of mankind; mainly that mankind should work in order to survive. In the Bible, the book of Proverbs often associates laziness with poverty. I believe that Bible teaches that laziness should not be rewarded with entitlements. That is what the old welfare system did.

It may sound un compassionate, or even ungodly to say the entitlements are wrong, but I believe that in the end the poor will be better off if they are force to work to receive money. I believe we are helping the poor more by making them work than by giving them handouts. From a practical standpoint, I think people who work for their money are going to be wiser with it and feel like they have value to society. The poor who have to earn what they get are going to be less likely to spend their own money on things like drugs, and alcohol. Also, when someone doesn't work he or she feels like they have no worth to society. As a result, many times these people are going to be inactive people, who have no reason to live.

They will have lots of down time when they can get into trouble and commit crimes. I believe a working society is a safe society. I belief welfare reform has done a better job at helping people get back to work than welfare entitlements did. According to 2002 statistics from the Health and Human Services Department of the government, almost 1 out of every three current entitlement dependents were working either for pay or for their community in some way. That is the highest percentage ever recorded and a three-fold increase since 1996 (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, Fourth Annual Report to Congress). Also, this same study reported that child poverty rates had fallen to 16.2%, 21% lower than the 1996 rate and the lowest rate since 1978 (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, Fourth Annual Report to Congress).

Welfare Reform is causing the poor to work and it is lowering the poverty rate of Children. I believe that the old entitlement programs of the past 70 years led to an unnecessary dependence on the government for many people. Welfare reform has cut dependence on the government and helped thousands of people find work. It has helped people find meaning and value in life and commit less crime. Welfare reform is succeeding and I believe it is more compassionate on the poor person than the entitlement system. Welfare reform has provided much needed help for those poor who need help in finding a job.

It also has provided a way for the poor to contribute in their communities and to become independent from the government. It's not the perfect system, but it sure is an improvement on the previous system of endless entitlements, that created over 15 million dependents on the government. As Christians we are called to have compassion on all people and I believe welfare reform is more compassionate on the poor than the entitlement system was. It helps them escape poverty instead of trapping them in poverty. That is what I call success..