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
That decline prompted Clinton to declare that 'We now know that welfare reform works. The government, in denying more financial benefits to those with more children will only make the family poorer. 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. The family cap has a set of federal standards that decide whether or not the cap pertains to a recipient or not. 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. Referring to the past welfare setup, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post says, ". who needs financial assistance and who doesn't, it eliminates a large number of undeserving recipients. "Public assistance rolls continue to decline sharply- 12 percent in the year after the reform legislation was passed. 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 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. Under the newer system, women recipients won't be so likely to allow themselves to become pregnant because of the financial strain it would create. Under the newer reform, the government has limited how long certain recipients can be dependent on government assistance. 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.
Common topics in this essay:
Washington Post,
Welfare Reform,
welfare reform,
federal government,
1996 welfare reform,
1996 welfare,
caseworkers subjective,
welfare reform 1996,
subjective judgments,
caseworkers subjective judgments,
power federal government,
dependent government,
financial assistance,
family cap,
family caps,
government assistance,
|
Acceptance Essays
