Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Welfare reform 2012 essay
Welfare reform 2012 essay
Welfare reform policies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Welfare reform 2012 essay
President Bill Clinton had faced a difficult reelection in 1996. The Republicans for the first time in 50 years gained control of the House and Senate. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, was pressuring President Clinton to aid in creating welfare reform,as this had been a conservative goal for awhile. Proponents for the welfare reform, an example being Florida U.S. Representative Claw Shaw, introduced the bill by playing the ideals of liberty stating that, “The inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty was written before welfare. ... People came to this country to work. Now the question becomes, Are these handouts a magnet that is bringing people into this country? To some degree, they are”. In 1992 President Clinton also won his election partly due to his promises for welfare reform making him forced to work with the Republican Party as it would be unpopular to go against his own word. …show more content…
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act became the official name for the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, as seen the ideals of conservatives were even implemented into the name promoting self determination and good work ethic. Due to the association between the Legislative and Executive branches of government the pass this act, it became hailed as a significant bipartisan achievement. As far as I could tell the media had little to do with the implementation of this act other than backing President Clinton into a corner with his own words, and interest groups seemed to be absent having little to no effect on the outcome
Hays found that initially most welfare workers were optimistic and even excited about the changes. Most workers felt that the Act represented real progress and allowed for positive changes which would positively impact the lives of their clients. Hays spoke to one welfare who said that welfare reform “offered the training and services necessary to 'make our clients' lives better, to make them better mothers, to make them more productive.'” But as she was soon to find out, welfare reform, while it did have a positive impact on the lives of some welfare clients, made the lives of most clients more difficult, not to mention the stress that it caused for the welfare workers who had to deal with the often confusing and illogical new rules.
There have been numerous debates within the last decade over what needs to be done about welfare and what is the best welfare reform plan. In the mid-1990s the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Act was proposed under the Clinton administration. This plan was not received well since it had put a five year lifetime limit on receiving welfare and did not supply the necessary accommodations to help people in poverty follow this guideline. Under the impression that people could easily have found a job and worked their way out of poverty in five years, the plan was passed in 1996 and people in poverty were immediately forced to start looking for jobs. When the TANF Act was up for renewal earlier this year, the Bush administration carefully looked at what the TANF Act had done for the poverty stricken. Bush realized that, in his opinion, the plan had been successful and should stay in effect with some minor tweaking. Bush proposed a similar plan which kept the five year welfare restriction in place but did raise the budgeted amount of money to be placed towards childcare and food stamps. Both the TANF Act and Bush's revised bill have caused a huge controversy between liberal and conservative activists. The liberals feel that it is cruel to put people in a situation where they can no longer receive help from the government since so many people can not simply go out and get a job and work their way out of poverty. They feel if finding a job was that easy, most people would have already worked their way out of poverty. The conservatives feel that the plans, such as the TANF Act, are a surefire way to lower poverty levels and unemployment rates as well as decrease the amount o...
In the summer of 1996, Congress finally passed and the President signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996", transforming the nation's welfare system. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act sets the stage for ongoing reconstruction of welfare systems on a state-by-state basis. The combined programs will increase from nearly $100 billion this year to $130 billion per year in 6 years. Programs included are for food stamps, SSI, child nutrition, foster care, the bloss grant program for child- care, and the new block grant to take the place of AFDC. All of those programs will seek $700 billion over the next 6 years, from the taxpayers of America. This program in its reformed mode will cost $55 billion less than it was assumed to cost if there were no changes and the entitlements were left alone. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today.
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
In 1988, Congress enacted the Family Support Act that combined an emphasis on education and training to help move Welfare recipients into jobs. As a governor, Bill Clinton was a strong proponent of the Family Support Act, but he campaigned for the presidency on a pledge to "end welfare as we know it." In 1994, the Work and Responsibility Act was passed. It also put more money into education and training for welfare recipients but had a limit of two years. This act was phased in slowly, starting with recipients that were born after 1971. “This phase-in had three advantages: it sent a message of personal responsibility to the younger generation; it gave states time to expand their ability to provide the necessary training and work opportunities;
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
Under the watchful guidance of President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party, America is finally moving in the right direction. In 1996, we, the Democratic Party, adopted and enacted a platform that has reinvigorated the American spirit of opportunity, responsibility, and community within our national character. Along with the hard work and determination of the American public this nation has achieved an unprecedented level of prosperity.
Welfare can be defined as health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being; Prosperity; and Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need (Merriam-Webster, 2014). It can be very beneficial to people in need of it. Tim Prenzler stated that, “Welfare systems are often seen as providing a ‘safety net’ that prevents citizens falling below a minimum standard of living (2012, p2). Everyone is able to use is if they are in need of it. People have successfully used welfare to get out of their slum, and started to support themselves. Others have decided to not try to get out of that slum, and live off that welfare. They decided that they didn’t have to try, and let the government support them. Welfare is a good tool for people to get back on their feet, but shouldn’t be that persons steady income.
Since the Welfare reform law was introduced in 1996 it has impacted American society greatly. The new welfare policy, named the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), replaced the Aid to Family and Dependent Children (AFDC) program; they have five known differences that only affect the ones who need the assistance. Critics argue that the TANF has negatively impacted the society while some argue that it has not. Linda Burnham, author of “Welfare Reform, Family Hardship & Woman of Color,” asserts that “welfare reform has increased the hardship faced by many women leaving welfare for work and their movement into low-wage jobs, exposes them to higher level of housing insecurities, homelessness, food insecurity, and hunger.” She also argues that women of color “are especially vulnerable to the negative impact of welfare reform” (38).
As of 1996, state and local governments were asked to assist many people in gaining their independence after the reform was enacted. (“Welfare Reform”) It is vital to the economy of the United States citizens to have the ability to support themselves as well as their families with no help from the government. Protecting all children and strengthening families were important parts of the reform measure. (“Welfare Reform”) The Welfare Reform Agenda of 2003 was built on the bases of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The goals of 2003 were to assist families in achieving financial independence from the government. (“Welfare Reform”) The 2003 agenda imposed a lifetime of 5 years of welfare benefits. (“Revisiting Reform”) The agenda also required able bodied adults must go to work within two years of receiving help from the government. (“Revisiting Reform”) Welfare reform can be described as a governments attempt to alter the welfare policy of the
Welfare has been a safety net for many Americans, when the alternative for them is going without food and shelter. Over the years, the government has provided income for the unemployed, food assistance for the hungry, and health care for the poor. The federal government in the nineteenth century started to provide minimal benefits for the poor. During the twentieth century the United States federal government established a more substantial welfare system to help Americans when they most needed it. In 1996, welfare reform occurred under President Bill Clinton and it significantly changed the structure of welfare. Social Security has gone through significant change from FDR’s signing of the program into law to President George W. Bush’s proposal of privatized accounts.
Welfare can be defined as “systems by which government agencies provide economic assistance, goods, and services to persons who are unable to care for themselves” (Issitt). The United States welfare system is an extremely complex and unique entity that encompasses ideas and concepts from an abundance of different places. Many people believe the current system is an excellent resource for the population, while others believe the current welfare system requires reform and budget cuts to become effective.
Welfare programs are an important part of American society. Without any type of American welfare, people will starve, children will not receive the proper education, and people will not receive any medical help simply because they do not have the resources available to them. Each of the three aspects of the American welfare system are unique in their own ways because they are funded differently and the benefits are given to different people. While support for these welfare systems has declined in the more recent years, the support for it when it was created was strong.
...ed that health problems and lack of affordable health care were barriers for many of the AFDC recipients to get off welfare. Clinton also wanted the states to play a wider role in the design of federal welfare programs. State and federal legislation now focused on personal responsibility, limiting stays on public assistance and imposing far more strict work requirements. These efforts to limit the federal role in services to the poor and to shift the responsibility to the states means that there are now fifty-one different welfare programs in the United States.
America is the greatest nation in the world. That is a sentence that has been stated many times by many different people, for many different reasons. Whether those reasons are militarily related, based on global political influence, or even economically. However one reason that this statement is repeated over and over again is the fact that America is the “land of opportunity”, a place where anyone can come, work hard and make something of themselves. No matter your age, race, religion, gender or creed, in America you have the opportunity to make something better for yourself and your family. However this ability, this “American Dream” is under attack. Not only is it under attack, it is under attack from within, from our own citizens. The motto of America seems to be changing, from “the land of opportunity”, a place you can work your way to prosperity, to the land of giving, a place where you can lounge yourself through life on someone else’s dime.