A Series of Contradictions
Many Americans hate social programs while others begrudgingly accept them. The attitude is I’ll pay for social programs through taxes but I am going to be mad about it. When it comes to social welfare, we are a series of contradictions. We believe in Christian charity but not in government programs. We like to think of ourselves as a generous people and yet we hate to have our money used to help the down and out. We believe freedom is an inalienable right but we do not believe in guaranteeing a minimum subsistence level of living. I contend that our hatred of social programs stems from our colonial heritage, our reverence of pioneers and self-reliance, and our views regarding what we owe the descendants of slaves.
The Origins of Social Programs in the US
Our history regarding social programs dates back to our English beginnings. The colonies had programs similar to the English poor laws of 1594 and 1601 and the Law of Settlement and Removal of 1662. “The English poor laws classified poor/dependent people into three major categories and established a requirement for “residency” before aid was provided. “…the poor laws separated the poor into two classes: the worthy (e.g., orphans, widows, handicapped, frail elderly) and the unworthy (e.g., drunkards, shiftless, lazy)….Parish officials were given the authority to raise taxes as needed and use the funds to build and manage almshouses; to supply food and sustenance in their own homes for the aged and the handicapped, (e.g., blind, crippled); and to purchase materials necessary to put the able-bodied to work. If vagrants or able-bodied persons refused to work they could be put in jail.” VCU So from the beginning, America’s social programs were judgmental and tied to church efforts.
The US was an under-populated country and provided opportunities to obtain land that did not exist in Europe. The pioneer was born and ultimately raised up and romanticized. The idea that through self-reliance one could carve out a life for themselves and their family is embedded in America’s ethos. “Pioneer life in America …is… an important part of American identity, one of the fundamental images Americans have of themselves, and an important part of the development of the country’s values and customs.” jrank.org
The concept that people could make it on their own and government has no role in providing support was codified by Rugged Individualism, a term coined by Herbert Hoover. “Hoover, a self-made millionaire, expressed his view that the American system was based on “rugged individualism” and “self-reliance.”.digitalhistory.uh.edu. Not surprisingly, prior to the great depression, social programs remained bare bones and were often private sector efforts.
The severity of the great depression overwhelmed the limited programs that existed. In response to the depression, the Federal government began paying states to provide relief and eventually began direct public work efforts. Ironically, Hoover ended up launching the largest public works effort of its time in 1932 to address the suffering from the Great Depression. Social Security and Food Stamps (SNAP) both began during the depression. Basically, social welfare was launched in the US as response to a dire emergency. As such, the adoption of social welfare programs did not reflect a full embrace of the concept that the government has a role in helping ensure the minimum welfare of all citizens.
The next major expansion of Federal social programs came in the 1960’s with the passage of series of social program initiatives including Head Start, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs were part of the “war on poverty” later referred to as the “Great Society”. Unlike the programs of the depression, these initiative were started during a period of significant economic prosperity with goal of eliminating poverty and radical injustice. www.history.com The inclusion of the concept that social welfare was a tool to “right” social injustice was a new twist that stemmed from the civil rights movement. Like the discussions on reparations today, the country was divided regarding what it owed the descendants of slaves to address social injustice.
Some 50 years later, poverty is still with us, however, much diminished. In 2017 the poverty rate was 12.3 % www.census.gov while in 1960 it was 22% and it hit its lowest rate in 1980 at 12 percent www.newgeography.com. Did social programs lower poverty levels? It is hard to say but the correlation between their enactment and the drop in poverty rates suggest they may have had an impact.
Many social welfare programs have work requirements
The Heritage Foundation reports that 89 percent of Americans believe social welfare programs should have work requirements. They then go on to say most social programs do not have work requirements, but do not name the programs www.heritage.org. There are many programs for which work requirements make no sense because the target population is either elderly or children such as Medicare, the infant feeding program (WIC) or school lunch. The one large program that does not have work requirements is Medicaid. But requiring people to work to get health benefits means that people who are sick but do not qualify for disability will go uncovered. That is pretty harsh.
In contrast, several of the major social welfare programs already have work requirements. SNAP (Food Stamps) provide 3 months of coverage to able-bodied individuals and then requires that they actively seek employment for at least 20 hours a week, TANF has similar requirements. Most Americans have no idea that these programs have work requirements. In addition, they have no idea what it is like to struggle with mental illness or addiction that can prevent you from being able to work.
Shortcomings of Social Welfare Programs
Despite suggestive correlations that social programs have reduced poverty, there are many shortcomings to these programs. First, the multitude of programs create a patchwork of benefits, extensive application requirements, and high administration costs. Many people who are eligible for benefits do not apply. This is due to lack of information, stigma, as well as not wanting to take financial support from the government. Many have proposed replacing the system of benefits with a single payment system.
Going beyond Social Programs to Universal Basic Income
Universal Basic income (UBI) guarantees a subsistence payment to each adult with no means test or work requirement. It would replace the myriad of social welfare programs we currently have. Pilot UBI programs have taken place or are ongoing in the United States, Brazil, Canada, Finland and other parts of the world. The Alaska Permanent Fund, created in 1976 is a form of UBI and provides dividends to permanent residents of the state ($1,022 in 2016, $2,072 in 2015, $1,884 in 2014) www.procon.org. Despite the fact that Alaska has a version of a UBI, the idea has been cast as extreme. However, the concept has been supported by a diverse set of scholars, political scientists, and politicians ranging from Milton Freidman to George McGovern. The debate over UBI verses the current system is one about efficiency of administration and not over need.
Spend the Money, Even if you are Mad About it
In an affluent country such as ours, no one should live in extreme poverty. We should, and basically do, guarantee a minimum standard of living. Add to this basic tenet that our government created a black underclass by enslaving approximately 310,000 Africans and their decedents for generations and then, after emancipation, kept them poor. en.wikipedia.org/ In light of our history, the idea that we do not owe the descendants of slaves a helping hand is preposterous. So stop being mad and pay your fair share to create a more equitable society.