economic reform in 1996

In August of 1996, a welfare reform was passed that took power away from the federal government and gave it to the states so that the states could develop their own personal ways of dispersing welfare. With the reform, each state is given a block grant by the Federal government and is met with little Federal regulation. In this reform, Clinton applied a “family cap” in hopes to discourage pregnancy among welfare recipients and also a few financial incentives for those who married. The new legislation also put limits on how long a person can be on the welfare program. The 1996 welfare reform changed welfare from what it use to be, a relatively liberal institution, to what it is now, a sort of middle ground between the liberal view and the conservative.

With the devolution of power from the federal government to the state, there no longer is one basic welfare program. Welfare varies very much from one state to the next and in some cases, from one county to the next. The power is very much spread out and many of the approaches entail “subjective judgment”. “By and large, these responsibilities are falling to welfare caseworkers.”(Dan Froomkin)

With welfare caseworkers making subjective judgments on

. . .

View the whole essay, without interruption

The down side to caseworkers making subjective judgments is that it opens up the possibility that a caseworker might deny a legitimate case for assistance out of his or her own prejudice. Though the figures might go to show that poverty is shrinking, critics say this might only be so because of a new underclass so impoverished that government no longer knows they exist. The federal government has less control over welfare then it did before the reform. who needs financial assistance and who doesn’t, it eliminates a large number of undeserving recipients. The reform also gives the states the power to deny unmarried teens and their children from financial assistance. Under the newer system, in most states, for an unwed teen mother to get any benefits she must live at home with her parents. That decline prompted Clinton to declare that ‘We now know that welfare reform works.

Critics of the reform argue that this only hurts the children. “Public assistance rolls continue to decline sharply- 12 percent in the year after the reform legislation was passed. Referring to the past welfare setup, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post says, “…for all it’s drawbacks, it ensured a certain kind of blind fairness.

The five-year maximum has been shown to force capable recipients to find work, which in effect is helping our country attain a more healthy employment rate. And though I see the many flaws with the reform, I’d say the reform and it’s advantages are a step in the right direction. There are many exceptions to the rule, as in people who aren’t capable of work, but for the general the maximum amount of time a person can accept assistance is five years. ’”(Dan Froomkin)

Some say that this five-year limit might drive some to employment but for many it will only force them into an even deeper poverty.

Approximate Word count = 863
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)

Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.