Government Assistance Welfare

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE WELFARE 18

GovernmentAssistance Welfare

GovernmentAssistance Welfare

A2015 U.S. Census Bureau report highlighted that 21.3% of Americanswere involved significant government support plans every month in2012 (Chantrill, 2016). In life, everyone encounters difficultpatches where welfare assistance might be required. Currently, manyAmericans are likely to face food challenges, become homeless, andrisk of losing their transportation means if they lose theirpaycheck. Moreover, the current economic problems and naturaldisasters are placing most Americans in a position that they arelikely to need welfare assistance from the government. As such, whencalamities and other bad things happen to citizens, there aregovernment health programs that are made available to suchpopulations at every level to aid them until they get better. In theU.S., welfare eligibility is usually open to all citizens since it isa right accorded to every American. The government welfare structureis there to assist and promote the general wellbeing of citizens.Therefore, the management assistance programs are made available inthe country to help serve the American populations that are in needand require support to secure food, clothing, housing, and medicalcare among other amenities.

Withthe economy struggling a huge number of Americans are turning to thefederal administration for assistance. There is a high percentage ofAmericans receiving the nationally-funded means-tested program withthe rate standing at 35.4% presently. Moreover, when other programssuch as unemployment, Medicare, pension, and social security areadded to the equation, the percentage augments further to about 49.5%(Chantrill, 2016). Hence, this shows that there is a massivepopulation that relies heavily on the government for support andupkeep. However, although this raises concerns among critics, it isthe government’s role to ensure that its people are taken care ofand supported where possible until they can manage to supportthemselves financially. The welfare programs exist because it is thefundamental duty of the government to ensure that all Americans aregiven equal opportunity to develop and pursue happiness.

Background

Presently,in the U.S., there exist numerous welfare services that do notnecessarily require a person to meet qualification criteria toaccess. Some only want a citizen to ask for the service, and theyautomatically qualify. One might be needed to offer proof to beeligible for welfare programs. Most programs would require a personto provide evidence such as substantiation of residency, picture id,social security numbers, income proof and a list of what one needs.By 1902, the U.S. government spent a negligible amount on welfare torelieve the poor. It spent less than 0.2 percent of its Grossdomestic product (GDP) on aid in addition to a 0.25% disbursement onhealthcare programs. During the 21st century’s early times, theadministration spent around 2 to 3 percent of its GDP on welfareservices. In 2015, the government’s spending on Welfareencompassing the local, state, and federal was approximated to beabout $1, 031 billion. The figure includes the $5645 billion spent onMedicaid and $466 granted to other welfare (Chantrill, 2016).Therefore, as the statistics show many people in the country areseeking government support whenever they are facing challenges intheir living conditions and lifestyles.

TheU.S. has witnessed over a century of welfare spending. The governmenthas spent on plans for joblessness reparation, salary support, andbenefit since the commencement of the 20th epoch at around 0.1% of(GDP). Nevertheless, welfare expenditure started to increase steadilyfollowing the great depression crisis to the extent that it reached2.1 percent in 1940 (Moffitt, 2015). However, during the Second WorldWar, welfare expenditure declined to around one percent. In thesubsequent years, the GDP spending on welfare had a consistent rateof 1% or 2% relying on the economic performance. In the early 1960s,health expenditure was about two per cent of GDP. Moreover, the greatSociety programs instigated the upward path of welfare, and in 1980the spending on welfare programs was between three and four percentof the GDP, thwarting during the recessions. President Clinton signeda welfare reform in 1996, resulting in the decline of welfare from a3.4% of GDP witnessed during the 19990-91 slump to a low of 2.4% in2000 (Chantrill, 2016). Nonetheless, during the 2001-02 depression,welfare costs augmented in 2003 to a 3.1% of GDP, but reduced in 2007to a 2.5% of GDP. Nevertheless, the 2009-10 Great Recession generatedan eruption in benefit expenses in 2010 reaching a high of 4.75%.(Chantrill, 2016) However, by 2015, the health costs were expected toreduce to a 2.66% and decline further by 2020 to 2.4 % (Chantrill,2016).

Contextfor the Current Situation

1n2011, around 49 percent of the American citizens resided in ahousehold where at least one individual received a direct subsidyfrom the federal government. Most members that receive welfarebenefits are retirees. Additionally, about 27 percent of Americanhouseholds profit from some form of poverty programs. Many peoplereceive welfare assistance concerning food stamps, Medicaid,subsidized lunches, veteran compensation, unemployment compensation,direct cash help, and housing among others. Because of PresidentObama’s stimulus programs, the number of households that areacquiring government benefits has gradually increased over time,especially after the latest financial crisis (Moffitt, 2015). Duringthe recession, many people in the U.S. lost their jobs requiringstate aid to support themselves and their families. Additionally, theObama stimulus expanded many programs such as Medicaid andunemployment insurance contributing to most people receiving helpfrom the federal government.

Accordingto the Statistics brain site, 67, 981, 000 Americans are currentlyreceiving government welfare assistance (2016). Additionally, 41,170, 000 receive food stamp aid, 10, 200, 000 are given unemploymentinsurance, over &amp million people received housing support, whileover four million inhabitants are granted TANF help and another 4.5million are offered general assistance welfare (Statistic Brain,2016). African Americans are the population that signifies thedemographic group with many people under welfare programs with a 39.6percent representation. Whites or Caucasian population represents a16.8%, Hispanic at 21.6%, Asians 18%, and the mixed or other groupsaccount for 4.4% of the population that receives welfare assistance.In the U.S., a person can earn $1, 000 each month and still receivecertain forms of welfare. Among 39 states in the country, assistanceprograms recompenses beyond an $8 per hour occupation, while in other6 federations, it pays above a $12 per hour work (Statistic Brain,2016). Moreover, in some eight states in the country, welfare paysbetter than a teacher’s average salary. The black population ismore likely to partake in a government assistance programs whencompared to other demographic factions (Fruth, 2014). Other groupsthat are likely to participate in government assistance welfareinclude female-householder families, unemployed populations, andnon-high school graduates.

Thereare different levels that a person can use to access health. Thefirst level is the local city government welfare assistance. At thelocal phase, many welfare programs are available to individuals. Thelocal administration can offer these services to people directly orrefer them to other relevant welfare assistance when unavailable. Inthe U.S., most city authorities contain provisions for emergencywelfare assistance with food, utilities among other necessities.People can often look for an emergency aid by contacting the citygovernment through a call number found in the relief section of thephone book. Most cities have requirements such as qualifying income,residents of the city, or a given number of people living in ahousehold that need to be fulfilled for one to be eligible forwelfare services. However, even when one fails to meet suchrequirements, there have always been other referral programs that thecity can point an individual, such as local churches and charitiesamong others. Beyond the local resources, other government welfareservices are given to people by states. The states’ governmentsarrange of programs, including food stamps, TANF, AFDC and otherwelfare programs (Chantrill, 2016). At this stage, the programs worksimilar to those provided at the local level, and they are mostlydependent upon the applicant’s income. There are local stateoffices that people can visit with their relevant documents to askfor such aid and services. At the state level, one had to have proofof identity and show the existence of other dependents for whom theapplicant wants help (Olson, et al, 2016). The other level is thefederal government one. In this phase, the national government getsinvolved to relief people that are facing a great multitude ofadversity such as natural calamities like hurricanes and floods.

TheExisting Policy/Law Associated With

The1935 New Deal package of President Franklin Roosevelt introduced thefirst federal welfare program in America. The U.S. social welfare ispresently furthered by two primary classes of cash support, includingpublic assistance and social insurance. The social guarantees arefounded on the past payroll contributions and earnings of a person,and they involve programs such as social security, employees’reimbursement, and joblessness indemnity (Pratt, 2016). Socialsecurity in an efficient anti-poverty approach and it covers matterslike disability and survivor’s insurances. On the other hand,public assistance, which is chiefly referred as welfare is usuallybased on the financial needs of a citizen.

Rooseveltintroduced the Social Security Act, which started as an Aid toDependent Children (ADC). The benefit was aimed at supplementing theexisting relief program for widows and to offer livelihood tohouseholds, whereby the father was jobless, absent or departed. TheADC kept growing throughout the years and by 1938 around 250, 000families were involved in the program (Sterett, 2010). During the1950s, there was rapid economic growth and reduced levels of povertyin the country, but the ADC rolls continued to rise. Thus, over 600,000 families were benefiting from welfare program by 1956 (Sterett,2015).

Furthermore,under President John F. Kennedy, in 1960, there were overwhelmingconcerns over the poverty levels. As such, the regime renamed andchanged ADC to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)(Sterett, 2015). Therefore, the Kennedy administration had furtherextended the program to encompass two-parent households with ajobless father. When Lyndon Johnson took over the presidency, he wasresolute to remake the society and the ruling administration. Hence,in his quest to fight poverty, he proposed a vast collection ofinnovative subsidy programs for provincial and state authorities, aswell as individuals. Johnson introduced many initiatives, includingMedicare, Heat Start, and Medicaid among others.

In1996, under the regime of President Bill Clinton, the Welfare ReformAct was passed resulting in changes in public assistance from theformer status since its inception. The reform was highly successfulas the number of participants in the welfare program decreasedrapidly to 4.2 million in 2009 from 12.6 million people in 1996,representing a decline of 67% (Sterett, 2015). Based on the previouspolicy, many people seemed trapped and reliant on the administration.However, the reform introduced time limits to ensure that welfarecould not be relied on as a tradition. It established a maximumperiod of five years, while independent states were permitted to seteven shorter times. The 1996 welfare reforms also set workrequirements for the recipients to reduce dependence on the program(Muennig et al., 2015).

Thereare many issues regarding well-being in America. For instance, by the1996 reform establishing no apparent qualification for poor people toacquire cash assistance, states can decide to limit support toservices and vouchers. Therefore, the necessities of the newlegislation portray a threat to the social work notion ofself-determination. The right for families and citizens to appealTANF decisions and the utilization of private agencies to deliverwelfare also raises concerns among Americans (Pratt, 2016).

Stakeholdersand Involved Parties

Theoverwhelming ratio dependency on the central governmental resourcesmight have direct but rather deleterious impacts to the well-being ofAmerica as a nation. Consequently, the highlighted contributions ofpast leaders in the redemption of particular policies reflect thedesires of many other influential figures as far as this concept isconcerned. There exist some organizations, which strive to uplift theaspirations of people, both domestically and worldwide. Thus, it isvital to identify that a country where people feel secure tends toconquer the odds that might pop up in their commercial endeavors(Ghilarducci, 2013). With this in mind, any person will admit thatthe U.S. is among the countries where policies which boost theefficiency of citizens are highly valued. In as much as thegovernment might be spending a lot of cash on the assistance plans,the advantages of such activities might overshadow some factors whichare considered to be negative from a divergent point of view.

Firststakeholder

TheUnited Nations has an organ that supports the well-being of peoplearound the globe. Many other minor organizations at the nationallevel pop up to ensure that things are stable through aspects whichare proposed by this international organization. For instance, theUnited States Interagency Council on Homelessness is a keystakeholder under this topic. However, this group proclaims the needof hard work within the nation. It mobilizes the government tostreamline other policies that offer education and other constructiveattributions of the deprived American citizens (Ruth et al., 2016).Senator Carol Liu of California has been amongst the vocal people inthe nation who have been firm in supporting the needy in America.According to Liu, everyone is obligated to attain certain advantagesdespite their financial situation. Through his contributions, theCalifornia’s Homeless Bill of Rights was reviewed and introduced in2015. His presentation expounded on the gap between the wealthy andthe have-nots in America.

SenatorCarol Liu views this issue as a priority not only in California butthe entire nation. Sidelining the importance of helping the poormight sabotage the progress of a nation according to the senator.Therefore, the government must continue to assist the poor throughwelfare policies that enable them to live the normal life as otherswho are well-off (Amsterdam, 2015). A deeper evaluation reveals thatwhen the poor are provided with education, housing, and food they canventure into other productive things which will boost the economy ofthe nation directly or rather secondarily. It goes without beingmentioned that Liu, who is the identified stakeholder under thistopic has directed her attention to a particular group of citizens inAmerica. The above statistics depict that many people who areassisted by the welfare policies are the blacks who come from poorbackgrounds. Nonetheless, the senator supports the discriminated lotwithout separation in line with their race (Rankin, 2015). Thehomeless come on top of her priority list whereby those who sleep onthe streets are assisted under diverse circumstances. Over the years,most homeless people have benefited on short-term strategies, wherebythey are provided with free accommodation during the night. However,the senator argues that the government needs to assist the homelessget jobs and education so that they can support themselves.

Politicalfactors can be reflected from the operations of the senator. Lui`spopularity has been uplifted from analogous contributions, whichplace the interests of the ordinary citizens at the peak of heractivities. However, the fact that she was able to pull out a dealwhich protects many people in California through the local governmentexpounds on the nature of the solution that is spearheaded by thesenator.

Secondstakeholder

Thealliance of retired Americans is another key organization whichhighly values the issue of government assistance welfare. Founded in2001, the agency has been vocal in fighting for the rights of theelderly people with no job in over thirty-five states of America. Thecontribution of this body has been magnified by certain individualswho feel that the old generation is being neglected. EasterlingBarbara, who is the president of this movement represents the pleasof many Americans who believe that they have been forgotten afterretiring from their services.

Therefore,it is evident that the issue at this point is portrayed as a crisisby the leading figure of this movement. The stakeholder is majorlyinterested in the wellbeing of those who are retired from theirduties and face lots of challenges in their day to day lives.According to Barbara, the elderly should be presented with continuousretirement compensations because of the current success of the nationclings to their contribution through hard labor and endurance (Fruth,2014). Just to mention, the fact that this organization has over fourmillion members reveals how the political wave can be affected byvarious factors connected to the entire process. The movement,through its able leadership, is crucial in the innovation process ofattaining legit solutions to the problems that affect many Americancitizens.

ThirdStakeholder

Thestatistics over the government expenditure on Medicare and otherhealth-concerned issues reveal the government’s ambitions inpromoting the national health standards. According to research, theCongressional Budget Office pinpoints that the spending on Medicarewill rise to 4.7% by the year 2040 (Gallaway &amp Garrett, 2016).Diverse health alliance organizations direct their attention to thegovernmental policies on the main issues, which are connected toMedicare policies. Therefore, there is a vivid connection betweenthis matter and the current political wave in America. The presentpresidential aspirant, Hillary Clinton is a key stakeholder figureunder this matter. The government must assist people who are sick atall times. It is worth mentioning that most people might find it hardto get medical assistance due to financial issues. With this in mind,the federal government must ensure that the Medicare Policies areregulated to cater for the needs of many needy people in all theStates of America.

HilaryClinton has a wider view on this issue, whereby her concentration ison every American Citizen (Speights, 2016). This is probably based onthe fact that she is an aspirant for the presidential seat. However,the negative political perception on this topic is squeezed by herpast contributions in uplifting the needs of the destitute indifferent states across the nation. The solutions to major medicalproblems can be solved without buy-in activities from other criticalmedical stakeholders. This is because, in many cases, the federalgovernment has been considering other factors that can be embraced toensure that stability is attained over specific medical problems.

Part3: Current Trajectory of the Policy Issue

Thegovernment welfare assistance has narrowed its trajectory of thepolicy issue with the Family Support Act. The U.S.’ most topicalpolicy is to begin on improving the well-being of it is citizens.Additionally, the main point of this policy is to promote the welfareof many single mothers through an amalgamation of work, training, jobnecessities, childcare grants, and juvenile provision enforcement.Consequently, this policy is a strategy to improve the livingstandards of most women in the United States and make the world abetter place. Any person with a cautious mind will agree that thecurrent trajectory of the policy issue is likely to make greatchanges just as the other programs implemented earlier by thegovernment welfare assistance. Compulsory working programs have beenput in place to involve most mothers to save the taxpayers much money(Santos, 2011). It is revealed that the nation’s 3.7 millionfamilies tend to depend on this welfare assistance. More so, mostsingle mothers make adequate wages to cover their overheads and dailybills. Thus, by combining assistance and work many recipients ofgovernment welfare are likely to lead better livelihoods (Piven,2014). Thus, through this approach most American citizens can makeends meet.

Sincethe 1970s, the purchasing power of welfare benefits is alwaysdecreasing as people assume that fewer benefits have profited mostrecipients to live economically. It goes without being mentioned thataid beneficiaries can live without dishonest. Besides, falsenesswould only contribute to dwindling the incident for cuttingremunerations. Welfare recipients cheat public sympathy for anysingle mother who is in need of government welfare assistance(Gustafson, 2011). However, many mothers on the assistance listsoperate on the similar ethical doctrines as other citizens. Theydeliberate that their first commitment is to look after theiroffspring, and they take responsibility to provide all the basicneeds for their children. Most recipients of this welfare benefitsfeel guilty of breaking any of the rules set because they are givenenough money to pay for their necessities. The assistance scheme doesnot permit the welfare recipients to save their earnings when suchcases are reported. On the other hand, it will never move many singlemothers away from the welfare rolls. In this case, single mothers donot turn to welfare for the reason that they are pathologicallydependent on handouts (Olson, et al, 2016). Single mothers preferbeing reliant on this welfare because they cannot secure jobs thatpay them well. Despite the fact that the welfare assistance givesthem money to support their families, this money is not enough forsustaining their daily needs.

ProposalsDiscussed by Relevant Stakeholders

Thefirst proposal involves basic income. The citizens of the UnitedStates are given a monthly stipend which is designed to sustain themfully in their daily lives. All residents are given these benefitsregardless of their economic and financial status. Fortunately,receiving the basic income does not depend on personal effort orrather any other kind of merit. Medical insurance is emphasized andgiven to both healthy and ill citizens. Universal basic income hasstrategies that, make sure that no citizen shall live in extremepoverty in the current epoch (Schumaker &amp Kelly, 2013). It isabsurd not to mention that lack of primary education results inabject poverty. Therefore, measures and strategies should be put inplace to reduce the problem of poverty in an affluent society.

Thesecond stakeholders’ suggestion is the Proposal of StakeholderGrants. Most citizens receive a one-time lump-sum when they attainthe age of twenty-one years. In this case, this makes most youngadults to be extremely wealthy and make the Unites States a betterplace. The main aim of this is to meet the target of all theMillennium goals that operate within the twenty-first century. Anyengagement in politics or various kinds of social community workswill be supported entirely. People with serious interests tend toaccomplish them at decent paychecks whenever they are provided with aprofitable market (Gelles, 2011). Currently, the low standards ofliving of people have been reduced through decent income. The problemfor many folks is the powerlessness to secure work in thesecategories of activities but not how people earn. Consequently, thisbenefit contributes to the balance of power amongst all classes ofindividuals in the American society. The government welfareassistance would lead to a superior stability of command between workand investment even if teams did not take part in collectiveorganizing. This would be sufficient for laborers in low-paying jobsbecause they tend to suffer both from low wage payments and harshworking conditions (Gallaway &amp Garrett, 2016).

Thepractical exit options of low-wage workers increase their bargainingpower with their respective organizations. Many low paying jobs willdisappear and lose market in the labor market. Contrary to this,there will be other workers willing and able to work for suchemployers due to their state of unemployment. The variation is thatthe power balance through within which the features of suchoccupations are determined would be moved to laborers (Fruth, 2014).An unrestricted elementary salary could also make a compensation incountless methods to enhance the shared strength of staffs besidestheir separate sway within employment.

Challengesfor Decision Makers

Thepresident, who is usually a primary decision maker encounterschallenges when trying to rally support for welfare reforms.Additionally, different legislatures face unique problems that areencountered by their constituents. As such, it becomes difficult forlegislature to gain support from other members in Congress who oftenseem to encounter parallel welfare problems. Other decision makerslike state and local governments face challenges in evaluating thepeople that qualify for different welfare programs as sometimesindividuals may falsify information.

Recommendationand Conclusion

Manypeople will receive government welfare assistance concerning allbasic human need which reduces extreme poverty. The Presidentrecommends stimulus programs because the number of households thatare acquiring government benefits have gradually increased over time,especially after the most recent financial constraints. Consequently,during the recession, many people in the U.S. lost their jobsrequiring state aid to support themselves and their respectivefamilies. In conclusion, the unfortunate people are more likely topartake in a government assistance programs when compared to theaffluent, elite, and decision makers in the society. Therefore, thereare many welfare organizations both governmental andnon-governmental, which strive to uplift the needs of people not onlyin America but also in other parts of the world.

References

Amsterdam,D. (2015). Before the Roar: U.S. Unemployment Relief after World WarI and the Long History of a Paternalist Welfare Policy. Journalof American History,101(4), 1123-1143.

Chantrill,C. (2016).What is the spending on Welfare? Usgovernmentspeiding.com.Retrieved from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending

Fruth,S. (2014). Has the Federal Government Insulated States from EqualProtection Norms Through Welfare Reform? Journalof Legal Medicine,35(3), 467-493. doi:10.1080/01947648.2014.936272

Gallaway,L. E., &amp Garrett, D. G. (2016). The unintended consequences ofthe war on poverty. CATOJournal,36(1), 33-45.

Gelles,R. J. (2011). Thethird lie: Why government programs don`t work– and a blueprint forchange.Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press.

Ghilarducci,T. (2013). Austerity distorts the common Economic Interests betweengenerations. SocialResearch: An International Quarterly,80(3), 953-976.

Gustafson,K. S. (2011). Cheatingwelfare: Public assistance and the criminalization of poverty.New York: New York University Press.

Moffitt,R. (2015). The Deserving Poor, the Family, and the U.S. WelfareSystem. Demography,52(3), 729-749. Doi: 10.1007/s13524-015-0395-0

Muennig,P., Caleyachetty, R., Rosen, Z., &amp Korotzer, A. (2015). MoreMoney, Fewer Lives: The Cost Effectiveness of Welfare Reform in theUnited States. AmericanJournal of Public Health,105(2), 324-328. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302235

Olson,J. G., Mcferran, B., Morales, A. C., &amp Dahl, D. W. (2016). Wealthand Welfare: Divergent Moral Reactions to Ethical Consumer Choices.Journalof Consumer Research,42(6), 879-896. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv096

Piven,F. F. (2014). How We Once Came to Fight a War on Poverty. NewLabor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.),23(3), 20-25. Doi: 10.1177/1095796014544692.

Pratt,D. A. (2016). Focus On … Portability. Journalof Pension Benefits: Issues in Administration,23(4), 18-26.

Santos,A. (2011). Americangovernment and politics today.Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.

Schumaker,P., &amp Kelly, M. J. (2013). The Public Assistance Policies ofCities and the Justice Concerns of Elected Officials: The Centralityof the Floors Principle in Addressing Urban Poverty. PolicyStudies Journal,41(1), 70-96. doi:10.1111/psj.12003

Sheely,A. (2013). Second-Order Devolution and Administrative Exclusion inthe Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. PolicyStudies Journal,41(1), 54-69. doi:10.1111/psj.12002

Speights,K. (2016). HowWould Hillary Clinton Change Medicare?Retrieved fromhttp://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/06/18/how-would-hillary-clinton-change-medicare.aspx

StatisticBrain. (2016). Welfare Statistics. StatisticBrain.Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Sterett,S. M. (2015). Disaster, Displacement, and Casework: Uncertainty andAssistance after Hurricane Katrina. Law&amp Policy,37(1/2), 61-92. doi:10.1111/lapo.12029.

Rankin,S. K. (2015). Homeless Bill of Rights (Revolution), A.Seton Hall L. Rev.,45, 383.

Ruth,T., Matusitz, J., &amp Simi, D. (2016). Ethics of Disenfranchisementand Voting Rights in the US: Convicted Felons, the Homeless, andImmigrants. AmericanJournal of Criminal Justice,1-13.

.