• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Wednesday, January 29, 1997

ASSISTANCE:

Welfare

programs pervade society, but some left in the coldWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,

... promote the general welfare ...

­ Preamble to the U.S. Constitution(1789)

I will come out and admit it, and you should too. I am dependent on welfare. I have lived in this situation for almost four years now. I doubt if I made $2,000 last year from working. The rest comes from the government rolls.

Gov. Pete Wilson would call what I do "subsidized idleness." According to his State of the State Address and his 1997-98 budget proposal, both of which were made public this month, it's time for me to get off the welfare rolls, end this cycle of generational dependency, go out and get a job, and while I stay on welfare, I can't do drugs or drink alcohol. Last but not least, I have to do this all this in one or two years, and five years over my lifetime. There is only one problem. I am a graduate student at one of the greatest universities in the world. How could I be on welfare? What happened?

If it were not for the social and political instability created by the Great Depression, the political expediency of a social-safety net would never have been realized. Out of this New Deal with the American people came "Social Security" and "welfare," two concepts which define our social provisions. The sociology of poverty, with earlier roots in Protestantism and Social Darwinism, changed and quickly became identified as a structural and institutional problem which government should solve. The conceptual split between the poverty policies of "Social Security" and "welfare" has exacerbated over time, with the first perpetuating middle-class welfare and the latter bringing to mind pictures of the "Lifestyles of the Socially Ill and Unfortunate."

Middle-class welfare, which has made our lives easier, expanded and quickly gained a broad-based constituency after World War II. The GI Bill of Rights, home ownership, work-study, Medicare and student loans are just a few you might have heard of (and you thought you weren't on welfare). This in turn became a major financial catalyst for the perpetuation of suburban utopia and attainment of the almighty "American dream." Students, veterans, the elderly and middle class workers became the beneficiaries of what are still over three-fourths of all federal entitlements or welfare programs.

Class makes a big difference politically when the government becomes financially constrained. Because of the capital surplus during the post-war economic boom, the federal government was willing to expand "welfare" programs for the lower and underclasses. In recent years of budget balancing, the Great Society "experiments" to eradicate poverty lost their funding and political clout as a result of being politically marginalized. I emphasize the economics of the debate because there have been, and remain, two competing behavioral ideologies to deal with poverty based on economic, as well as a few social and political circumstances.

Recently, I labeled this debate in terms of "bootstraps-individualism creating opportunity" vs. "opportunity for bootstraps-individualism." Although most Americans will say they believe in "bootstraps-individualism," the difference between these two phrases is dramatic.

Let's begin with "opportunities for bootstraps-individualism," which became a federal focus about 35 years ago. The ideology grew out of the 1960s when barriers to opportunity were seen as the main reason for poverty. One major barrier which was identified and brought to the government was racism.

Although the government had "welfare" programs, they were run by states which, depending on what part of the country, discriminated against minorities. These problems were legally solved by the civil rights laws of the era, which helped to some extent, but the recent attacks on welfare are tainted with racism as well. (It is a well known fact that the majority of the poor are white, but the typical media stereotype of a welfare dependent is an African-American, single mother with multiple children, on drugs and depending on "welfare.")

The other major barriers (which are still highlighted today) are job training, employment opportunities and child care. The last issue, child care, has become a major concern in recent years due to the influx of women in the labor force. This has led to other structural tensions on the capacity of the labor market which should be considered, but which are not discussed here. Although the problems were identified, the solutions went underfunded and were not pragmatic to eradicating poverty. In contrast to this token government altruism, Reaganomics and conservatives developed what we have today, which comes from the older tradition of "bootstraps-individualism creating opportunity."

The Reagan revolution introduced "trickle-down" economics during 1981 in a time of economic decline as the dominant government strategy for dealing with domestic policy, especially the poor. It is a largely held belief that welfare violates the core principles of this supply-side economics. According to this theory, if the market is working correctly then there will be no poor because the benefits of the upper classes will trickle-down in the form of jobs and charity for the poor. This led the federal government to slash social spending in the early 1980s while cutting taxes for the rich and financing a military buildup through debt.

It is also apparent today that this theory does not work (at least for a majority of the population, which is all that matters in a democracy).

The problems with this theory lies in the deference to economics when historical, political and cultural circumstance may be a better predictor of success. The first problem results in the restructuring of the economy from an industrial-manufacturing industry to a service and financial one.

Prior to the late 1970s, the majority of jobs created were high-wage, high-benefit manufacturing jobs which gave the working class mobility to move into the middle class. Currently, the jobs being created for these same people are minimum wage, part-time, and low or no benefit (I do recognize the other kinds of jobs being created at the high end of the scale, but the poor do not have the training or extended amount of education to access this end of the spectrum). No one can support a family on these wages, let alone reach a minimum standard of living (see Los Angeles' current Living Wage Ordinance debate).

The second problem lies in the greedy nature of capitalism itself and especially the new emerging international corporate culture. If one follows the tenets of capitalism, then the poor are a necessary part of society. In order to keep the costs of labor down (without using illegal immigrants), the working class has to be one step away from desperation (read poverty). This has been accepted within American society, realized in the optimal unemployment rate of 5 to 6 percent, and full employment never being realized.

Another factor which defeats the idea of deferring to private contributions to the poor is the fact that many large corporations in the United States are international, with many being run by foreign nationals and recent immigrants. Many of these cultures, like Japan for instance, do not have a long history of contributing to the poor. The U.S. federal government used to provide a lot of funding for non-profits, but this funding has shrunk. In the last 10 years, volunteerism, a manifestation of the Protestant work ethic, is also on the decline (a result of the secularization of the United States as well as the rise of diversity in religious beliefs, each with their own values and principles). There is no reason to put much faith in contributions to the poor being realized.

Add all this together, and you may have a bleak picture which segues into the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and California's policy for implementation. We understood that welfare reform is needed, but what happens to the poor now? How will these people be taken care of?

The federal Welfare Reform Act was a good beginning framework for the state to work with, and I do emphasize beginning. Gov. Wilson's punitive-oriented implementation plan, found within the state budget proposal, places time restraints on welfare recipients (one year to get a job, and then dropped off the eligibility rolls in one more year, compared with two years to get a job for current recipients) curtails substance abuse, creates work requirements, expands support services (in the form of child care and drug treatment), and requires mandatory schooling for children.

Another report, released by the Legislative Analyst's Office, was more moderate than the governor's plan and emphasized job training and returning General Assistance, currently county-run and the final resort after welfare, to the state. The Democratic Legislature will be producing their own version of implementation, soon to be forthcoming. These well conceived solutions to welfare are as numerous as the problems themselves.

Time restraints are a good idea, but according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and everyone from the president on down, there is no way the private sector can create the jobs needed. In California alone, the governor's office has estimated the need for 1 million jobs, and 25 percent of these have to be created by the summer. Even the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) wants the state to create community-service jobs in the interim, but who will pay and what will get cut? Not education. Maybe prisons, but I doubt it.

The expansion of support services is extremely important in the measure as well. In examining the governor's proposal, I doubt the funding really reflects the need for child care, and I never did see any emphasis on job training. At least the LAO wants to expand the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (job training for former AFDC recipients), which already has an infrastructure. The history of the American economy also shows that you can't provide the poor with decent jobs in a service economy.

Along the more punitive lines of the governor's implementation plan are the establishment of paternity for the children and extensive social worker interviews to determine family pathology. While the first seems worthwhile financially, the ability to create a paternity data base, maintain and then enforce this as a mandatory requirement seems to be an infringement of the right to privacy, as well as too costly. The interviews and hiring of social workers is also a costly measure, not even considering the perpetuation of social work as a profession and its special interest in this debate. It's like the opening ceremonies of a gladiator battle up at Capitol Park in Sacramento, the prize being millions in human services funding over the next five years.

The governor has also suggested changing the legal mandate counties have in providing the General Assistance program, the last resort for indigents. Although counties are strapped for cash (and they would like to be released from this responsibility), if the state releases the bottom net, it's a very long fall. The LAO has a better idea in standardizing the program statewide and administering it from the top.

I will give the governor credit for one thing though. As punitive and draconian as some of the implementation measures in Gov. Wilson's proposal, he provides extensive provisions for children so they will not lose any benefits. Even the LAO follows up the governor on this issue. But emphasizing adoption as a choice for mothers on the government rolls? I know you're in love with the police state, Pete, but come on.

Andrew Jon Westall

Westall is a graduate student in the department of urban planning.