Poverty and Welfare - Term Paper Example

INTRODUCTION As country and people, the society is beset by a shadow and light. As one looks back to the past, one remembers the age of ideologies and the failure of communism. As one looks at the present, one celebrates the new information revolution and cyberspace as well as the phenomenon of globalization and democratization; and as one looks forward for the future, one believes that his nation can stand up to its neighboring countries and narrow the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Poverty is seen worldwide and it has been a continuing global concern for many decades now. With the advent of globalization and despite the advancement in both science and technology, poverty has been a problem which has not been given a full solution to eradicate it. Poverty is manifested by famine, poor health and sanitation facilities and a great number of low-income families or those with no income at all. Another cause is seen on people who have a below average ability to earn an income (Cason, 1999). The government has drafted several solutions and a welfare system to help address the problem on poverty as it works hand in hand or on collaboration with non-government organizations and private business establishments and individuals in the hope of taking care of the welfare of impoverished families and individuals. While the welfare system was designed to help those in an impoverished situation, the system is a failure as it only promotes and enables the continuance of nonproductive individuals who should be providing for their families. Globalization has both positive and negative consequences. Globalization presents humankind with opportunities for a richer and fuller life, but such a desired goal will not come about automatically and in fact meets many obstacles. This worldwide integrative process would end up in a situation of greater dependence of the many poor nations on the few rich nations, rather than a really interdependent world. True, interdependence will not come about by sheer play of market forces; it needs to be deliberately fostered by carefully formulated and implemented public policy on a global scale. The sovereignty, self-determination, and legitimate interests of weaker nations and smaller communities could be eroded and weakened by the economically, politically, and militarily stronger nations as well as transnational corporations. The emergent global culture could lead to a materialistic world view that would significantly affect human and societal behavior. What is at stake here is how the problem of poverty is defined. It is critical here to see the significance and power of how the question is asked. Individually, if a person is unable to meet the basic needs, then that person is in poverty. If the global question is asked in terms of a problem of scarcity, then the answer is in terms of a solution aimed at growing. If, however, it is asked in terms of a problem of inequality, then the answer is approached in terms of a solution of sharing. Thus, the approach which would strike at the causes of poverty and not just the effects will be an approach which takes a hard look at situations and structures which promote and perpetuate inequality by being obstacles to sharing. The United States is clearly the figure taken by other countries in measuring wealth and power as well as determining its poverty cases. Food, shelter, and clothing s well as education are the basic measurements for determining poverty. If a person is unable to meet these basic needs, then that person is poor. Focusing on America alone, one asks how poor are the poor people in America? How do Americans define the word impoverished? Just like in other countries, Americans view poverty as the inability to provide oneself or the family with nutritious food, decent shelter, and clothing; and the Census has identified the 37 million people fitting this description. With such figures taken into consideration, one starts to wonder primarily on the living conditions of these unfortunate individuals. According to the article of Robert E. Rector (2007) the Census Bureau's report on poverty revealed 37 million poor people living in the US in 2005 and the figure has not changed much in the preceding years, with a percentage playing between 12.6% in 2005 and 11.3% to 15.1% of the American populace in the last 20 years. Interestingly, unlike other countries where poor people are described as those who have no decent clothing, shelter and who almost don't eat in a singly day, the poor people or families in America are surprisingly well-housed, with sufficient food, and enjoy various amenities, even air conditioning and colored television with cable and/or satellite (Rector 2007). Figure 1 is a representation of the consumer goods owned and consumed by the identified poor people living in the US, while figure 2 shows 70% of poor American households reporting that they were "able to meet all essential expenses including mortgage, rent, bills and other important medical care (Rector and Johnson, 2004)." This may have been attributed to the success of the welfare reform as stated by Robert E. Rector and Patrick F. Fagan in the article (2003) The Continuing Good News about Welfare Reform, "the welfare reform has been effective in meeting each of its goals beginning 6 years ago when President Bill Clinton signed the legislation overhauling a part of the nations welfare system because it resulted to the substantial drop in overall poverty, child poverty, and black child poverty which means that the legislation has been successful in meeting each of its goals: reduce welfare dependence and increase employment, reduce child poverty, and reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage." (Figure 2.) (Figure 1) This could have been so, but since welfare recipients who refuse to work still receive financial assistance from the government under the Senate Bill, and since this is the case, then, the Welfare Reform’s success is false. “The welfare reform legislation of 1996 took a dramatic step forward in reforming the system by introducing the notion of reciprocal obligation rather than one-way handouts of welfare benefits. Yet today, after seven years, reform in many states has been severely limited by a failure to institute reasonable sanctions for non-compliance with work and work-preparation requirements (Turner and Rector, 2003).” Thus, resulting to a failure in the Welfare Reform. In addition, in New York City for instance, the city has been experiencing a difficulty in operating and implementing its program titled welfare-to-work because of weak sanctions in which the city mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, assigned the city agency's human services to contact recipients and "actively engage them in constructive work and other activities. (Turner and Rector, 2003)" However, the mission proved to be difficult because four years after its implementation because more than one third of the identified population who are able will not and cannot be induced to do so. Figure 3 shows New York City's outreach efforts where one third of its recipients who are capable participating in the outreach's self-help obligation have not been contacted by the city's human services agency, while figure 4 shows those who are not willing to take part in the city’s activities. (Figure 3) (Figure 4) For a family or an individual to have the capability of meeting the basic needs to living, one must earn a living to be able to have buying power. Money enables a person to purchase the essential things needed in order to survive. Clearly, since under the Senate Bill, even if a person refuses to participate in the city’s outreach programs and other self-help activities, he still receive financial support, the Welfare reform is then again a failure. But, granting that poor individuals are earning a decent income, like in the year 2007, when it was reported that there was an increase in income, still, poverty rate remains flat, no movement whatsoever. As reported by Rea S. Hederman (2008) about the report released by the Census Bureau on "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States for the year 2007," announcing that last year’s income inequality had dropped, median household income had increased, and the poverty rate had increased by a statistically insignificant amount.” One identified factor is the inequality in the distribution of income wherein the Census Bureau attributed to the varying number of household members. Obviously, for households having more than 5 members need more resources than household who only have 3 members, taking into consideration how many adults and children live in a particular household for the measurement of consumption since children obviously consume less than adults, so if a family of 5 consists of 4 children, then the resources needed would not be as big as a household of 5 member who are all adults. Reform on welfare legislation in 1996 was one of the US most successful reforms on social policy. Unlike the previous system which gives reward to people who are idle and dependent, the new policy help welfare dependents to move towards becoming self-sufficient at the same time reducing the case of welfare caseload. Not like the older system which resulted to an increase on unwed mothers and other social problems, the new welfare reform legislation reduced poverty amongst children as it increases employment. It might seem that everything has been going so well, but due to laxity and lack of focus on the new welfare system, the new legislation is not able to reach its expected potential. This is why the welfare legislation was reauthorized in 2006, in the month of February which already included steps that renews and focuses on promoting work amongst recipients, but still continued attention and action is needed yearly to successfully safeguard the progress made by welfare recipients and to fully measure and realize the success and goals of the welfare policy. Conclusion Unlike third world countries, poverty is not described as having people living on the streets who practically no decent food shelter and clothing. In the United States, the poor individuals and families still enjoy basic household amenities as those with well-to-do families, only that they income may not be as stable as those. Thus, the poverty being experienced by poor people living in the United States is described to be relative poverty. But, whether poverty is relative or absolute, eradicating it has been a worldwide issue and focus. But then again, if the people reached out to by the government will refuse to actively participate, then, whatever reforms initiated to address poverty and unequal income distribution will always be futile. People should always be taught the importance of their participation and input to make the programs and other reforms successfully realize its goals and objectives. No social transformation is genuine and lasting where people themselves do not actively participate in the process. This is not only a sociological axiom but it also stems from the nature of human dignity and solidarity where people are seen as active and responsible subjects of social life and are therefore the catalyst for change and the important determinant which makes the Welfare Reform successful or not. Bibliography Cason, Katrina (1999). "Poverty." The Global Relations of the Many Nations. ThinkQuest. Viewed: 30 December 2008, from: http://library.thinkquest.org/25029/poverty.shtml. Rector, R.E. and Johnson, K.A. (2004). "Understanding Poverty in America." The Heritage Foundation Leadership for America. Backgrounder No.1713. Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan (2003). "The Continuing Good News about Welfare Reform," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1620. Rector, R.E. (2007). "How Poor are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America." The Heritage Foundation Leadership for America. Backgrounder No.2064. August 27, 2007. Viewed December 27, 2008, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm Turner, J. and Rector, R.E. (2003). "Under Senate Bill, Welfare Recipients Who Refuse to Work Would Still Get Cash Benefits." The Heritage Foundation, Leadership for America. Backgrounder No. 1669. July 21, 2003. Viewed: December 28, 2008 from, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1669.cfm. Hederman, R. S. Jr. (2008). "Census Bureau Shows Income Gains in 2007, but Poverty Remains Flat. The Heritage Foundation. WebMemo No.2035. August 27, 2008. Viewed, December 28, 2008 from, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2035.cfm. Read More