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.