Sort Of Reform Of Social Welfare Programs example essay topic

The Declaration of Independence was created in 1776 with three basic principles in mind. The pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness were the paramount issues focused on by the framers. The 18th Century was a different time. Back then, every man worked on his own farm.

He was expected to provide for himself and his family. It was unheard of for anyone to receive assistance from the government. As the country progressed and evolved, the rich got richer and the poor poorer. The Gilded Age of the late 19th Century truly showed the disparity in wealth in America with billionaire business barons employing penniless workers in deplorable conditions. Progressive reforms came along, pioneered by Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull-Moose Party, restricting rampant business corruption and unfair practices. These changes were not enough though, especially with the onset of the Great Depression.

Poverty struck the entire country. Unemployment ravaged blue and white-collar workers alike. The entire country was plunged into despair. Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States, pulled America out of its slump and restored its citizens to global prestige.

His revolutionary social welfare programs were the first of their kind established by our government. This power was given to him in the Constitution, where it specifically states tat the government may "provide for the general welfare of the people". He also broadened the income tax to all workers in 1943, making all of these government-funded programs possible. His bold plans that worked to pull us out of the greatest worldwide depression ever are the foundation for every welfare program we have today. However, once created these programs are very difficult to eliminate.

Lyndon Johnson was the next president to make significant advances in social welfare. He launched his War on Poverty, aimed at turning America into a Great Society, one without homeless on the streets or hungry children. In order to accomplish these goals he established liberalized requirements for government money. Over the next thirty years, Johnson's dreams of a society without poverty were not realized. Time showed his programs did more harm than good, raising the nation debt to staggering proportions. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a Welfare Reform bill as passed to by a Republican Congress.

Reform in 1996 meant cutbacks in aid to the people that Johnson included in his programs, specifically in AFDC, and those who received subsidies from the government. Today, many Americans still rely on government subsidies to provide money for survival necessities. Despite the reduction in many programs, Social Security, unemployment, and other federal programs still provide money to millions of Americans. One of the greatest arguments in every political race is the fight to keep or modify existing legislation that allows these programs to continue. In the 2000 presidential race, these programs were on the forefront of the political bickering between the Republicans and Democrats. The legislation of 1996 has shown that it is possible to reduce social welfare programs, but often it is difficult to eliminate them totally.

Social Security is the prime example of a social welfare program that is all but impossible to eliminate. Created by the passage of the 1935 Social Security Act, money was to be provided to 35 million elderly American citizens who, at the time, faced a bleak, penniless future. Franklin Roosevelt was one of the staunchest supporters of this legislation:' We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but is by no means complete... It is... a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness. ' (1) At the time, this program seemed to be a good idea and still is considered to be by many, but it has its flaws. When established, the program provided a single lump sum payment upon retirement, regardless of age.

As time progressed, it became apparent that this would not work. Too many people were receiving benefits. Reforms to the system were necessary, and in 1939 the monthly payment system replaced the lump-sum payment, alleviating some of the stress on the government by not forcing large payments immediately upon retirement. Other legislation passed in 1950 included COLAs (Cost Of Living Adjustments), which maintain level of Social Security payments using the consumer-pricing index (see Table 1).

In addition to this legislation disability benefits were introduced in 1956 and Medicare was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, providing health care to all aging Americans. Social Security today is one of the hottest issues in politics. The program is being threatened by a prodigious surge of aging recipients. According to projections by the Social Security Board of trustees by the year 2037, there will be no money left to pay for the program. Over the last twenty year, from 1980 to 1999, the amount of money given out as Social Security has more than tripled, from $120 billion to $385 billion (see Table 2).

With the existing legislation, Social Security will not survive. The Democrats and the Republicans both offer solutions to the problem. The Democrats would use budget surplus money to bolster the social security fund and keep it safe. The Republicans want to privatize the money by putting it into the stock market hoping to recoup a greater yield than what was previously being earned.

Both sides know that proposing an elimination of Social Security would be an extremely unpopular decision. They do not want to upset the millions of Americans over the age of 65; the same Americans that have the highest voter turn-out. Despite the fact that the most obvious solution to this burdensome program is to do away with it, the elderly who get their checks every month and get their medical bills paid for by the government would be outraged if, after years of putting money into the fund, they were to receive nothing. Additionally, many of them rely on Social Security as their sole source of income.

Despite being initiated with the idea that it would be a supplement to a person's income, without that check every month in the mail, some would have nothing. The idea of forcing grandpa out onto the street because he cannot pay the rent anymore is not something that any politician wants to face. President Bill Clinton comments of the moral implication of an end to Social Security:'s social Security... reflects some of our deepest values -- the duties we owe to our parents, the duties we owe to each other when we " re differently situated in life, the duties we owe to our children and our grandchildren. Indeed, it reflects our determination to move forward across generations and across the income divides in our country, as one America. ' (1) The reality of a country without assistance for the elderly is a country that has a lot of poor, old people.

Too old to work, too old to pay those increasing medical bills, the aged would be destitute, hungry, and subject to living in deplorable conditions, or they would place a burdensome load on their relatives, like what happens in impoverished third world countries. Despite the skyrocketing and seemingly insurmountable costs of the program, it goes against the conscious of any politician to support the termination of Social Security programs. Because of both moral and political considerations, Social Security could be the hardest program to eliminate from the federal spectrum of welfare programs. Social Security is not the only program that the government offers to ensure the welfare of its people. The government has been subsidizing various industries for hundreds of years. Originally used as a way to help businesses in the 19th Century, subsidies were used by the government to encourage railroad manufactures to expand to the west, a way of ensuring the American expansion into the Western frontier.

The government gave certain railroad companies the land they required to put the tracks down, saving the companies millions and giving them a good reason to build towards the Pacific. By the 20th Century, thousands of small farmers, who relied solely on their crops for income were not earning enough money, due to the abundance of goods produced. The depression and drought hit farmers the hardest, reducing the demand for their crops and plunging the agricultural industry into a deep hole. Across America, farmers found no market for their crops and subsequently were not able to make a living. In the 1930's Roosevelt implemented programs that provided subsidies for all kinds of agricultural producers, from tobacco growers to hog farmers.

The subsidies paid to these farmers allowed them to continue producing the goods that every American eats, a necessity for the survival of every aspect of our country. During the Depression these programs were essential for the continuation of farming, but as time progressed, the agriculture industry recovered from the Depression, as did other sectors. However, the subsidies continued from the federal government. Lobbyists in Washington ensured that the farmers would continue to receive money, even though farming was profitable again. The problem arose when gigantic corporations moved into the farming sector, overtaking the smaller, family farms that populated the mid-west and other farming regions. These large conglomerates received the same subsidies that the little farmers did, but by consolidating many little farms into one large one, they also increased profitability.

By the 1990's this had become a lucrative trade, and it was supported by several key members of the legislature who ensure that the subsidies continue. Influence by big business is a whole other reason why it is so difficult to remove existing social welfare programs. The large corporations employ lobbyists to do their bidding; their sole purpose is to influence politicians, often offering "benefits" to anyone willing to support their cause. These massive agra-businesses make billions of dollars from these government subsidies originally designed to protect small, Depression era farmers.

Despite attempts by urban dwellers to eliminate blatant aid to big business, these programs remain in place and are subsequently taken advantage of by the beneficiaries of the government money. The difficulty of eliminating these programs, as shown, originates from several different sources. All of these sources relate to a politician's fear of being voted out of office. Every person that holds a vote in Washington must focus on what his or her constituents wants, making sure to please the maximum number of people. When voting of social welfare legislation, most representatives know that many of their voters rely on money from the government and do not want to eradicate a large portion of their incomes. Therefore, congress rarely passes cutbacks; their concern for reelection is too great.

Many sources conspire against any sort of reform of social welfare programs, some good, some bad. Originally designed to protect the elderly during the depression, welfare programs evolved to include all of the American poor, but also some factions that were not suffering. Abuse of these programs by corporations leads to a push to eliminate ways for the system to be exploited, but the need of the poor outweighs the negatives. Being the most powerful country in the world means that we should be able to take care of all of our citizens. The wealthiest nation should make sure that children are not hungry and that the elderly are cared for. Without these programs in place, that would not happen, and no one wants the poor to suffer..