Welfare Cost in the Government - Research Paper Example

Welfare cost in the Government is running out of control Welfare cost in the Government is running out of control The static en ment of twentieth century the model of welfare in America is failing. This means that Americans should tolerate no more. Hardworking Americans earn dismal returns from Social Security yet the scheme faces insolvency. Costs of different commodities are running out of control while the Medicare is unfairly limiting options for almost every American. The name of poverty still lingers in the minds of many (June & Mark, 2004). This is because, the poverty is tragic and is as rampant as it was at the onset of the fight against poverty and welfare programs in the outset of 1960s. The history of the American welfare is intriguing as the Congress and other policy makers can take divergent paths. The Fantasy path, which opines that Medicare and Social Security can survive even without structural reforms, the “Welfare Empire”, has no problems even upon keeping over fifty million Americans in dire poverty, and there is nothing wrong (Marx, 2004). However, this paper intends to show that the cost of welfare in government is running out of control and the only way to end this problem is through divergent means that it will highlight. Today, the level of poverty in America is high, the cost of medical health is expensive, and overly the cost of living is becoming exorbitant. With reference to Austerity path, the concerned officials tend to turn a blind eye on these issues and concede that, the best days of American life are over, then cuts rations care, attests that things like incremental change are not enough and cannot meet the existing challenges (David, 2010). Additionally, the radically divergent paths taken by policymakers result to cut benefits and a Gingrich path of growth and innovation that concedes that poverty will remain to be an inevitably concurrent fact of all American lives (Howard, 2002). Nevertheless, it has come to most peoples’ minds that, in spite of all the challenges facing Americans today, there exist numerous and radical measures that can save Americans from cash drainage and continuous siphoning of welfare funds (Eric & Glenn 2004). One, in order to control the cost of welfare in government from running out of control, the government could slow the growth of welfare, promote personal responsibility, give portions of welfare assistance in form of loans instead of grants, and/or the government and the other concerned agencies could simply do away with the welfare (Mink & Rickie, 2003). Organizations likely to benefit Enacting these measures would relief a number of organizations of the burden of providing welfare funds to areas that require it. For instance, the government of United States spends lost of dollars in funding welfare services such as medical health, insurance, food aid agencies, public utility steering agencies, and many other organizations within the States (Marx, 2004). It is agreeable that, if only America could invest in ending or relinquishing the welfare services, it would save itself a big deal of responsibility (June & Mark, 2004). Therefore, the Government of the United States of America is one of the agencies that would benefit from stopping or easing the welfare services. Findings make it clear that the Government of the United States does not service welfare all by itself. Other agencies facilitate initiation of the welfare funds and they include the US Department of Health, The Treasury Department, Human services Department, and non-governmental organizations such as the World Food Program, The World Health Organization, and the UNEP (Wenli, 2002). Slowing the growth for welfare As indicated in this paper, slowing the growth for welfare will be part of the efficient and reliable measures aimed ensuring that the cost of welfare in government does not run out of control (Eric & Glenn 2004). This is because, as the history of relief and help runs deep in the hearts of fake poor people, slowing the growth of welfare funding towards reversible services will be a sure effort that will control the cost of welfare in government. Making those agencies involved in producing welfare services curtail their support towards welfare can act as a pragmatic effort that can stop the uncontrollable cost of welfare within the US Government (Howard, 2002). As this measure states, slowing the rate of growth of welfare services in the US means strengthening and securing Social Security through growth and innovation. This in turn will empower Americans with options of investing in things like personal savings accounts. By slowing the growth of welfare, Americans can have the responsibility to depend on their selves through opportunities of unleashing their power of market. It seems that, since the government of the United States announced war on poverty almost forty years ago, it has spent large sums of dollars on aid and welfare to the poor (June & Mark, 2004). Nevertheless, since the concerned agencies have incorporated unscrupulous dealings that fragment the assistance, a vast aggregate of the amount is largely unaccountable. Reports show that, through myriad programs, the government and other responsible agencies lose many funds through welfare cost hence making the system become uncontrollable. As of now, part of the strategies that the government can formulate in view of controlling the cost of welfare is by slowing its growth (Mink & Rickie, 2003). Part of the means tested welfare to low income persons and aid to poor Americans is one of the top three most expensive functions of the government in America. Therefore, by slowing the growth of welfare cost can relief the state, federal, and local governments the burden for supporting the elderly and education through Medicare and Social Security (David, 2010). The spending involved in means tested welfare involves aid to the poor and consists of government programs, which provide or avail deliberate assistance exclusively to the low-income persons and the poor. As the government, programs ascertain; non-welfare programs should give assistance to the public while welfare programs should cater for the poor and low-income earners (Marx, 2004). For instance, the welfare programs should provide assistance in form of Medicaid, public housing, food stamps, and temporary assistance for needy families. On the other end, the presence of non-welfare programs helps in providing assistance in form of public education, Medicare, Social Security, and police protection, which is for Americans of all income earning levels. This shows that, the government and the concerned agencies initiate a lot of money towards provision of these welfare services (Howard, 2002). With that respect, it is agreeable that the cost of welfare is running out of control in this case. Therefore, by slowing its growth, the government can stand in a position likely to control the spending. Promoting personal responsibility Policy makers put across that, if every member of the American community were to take charge in controlling the amount of money charged in programs fragmented for aiding the poor and low-income earners, then, cases of uncontrollable welfare cost would be unimaginable. This because of the fact, responsible people have the will to exercise their ability and will power towards granting themselves opportunities of generating a brighter future (David, 2010). Thus, personal responsibility of one of the most important steps that the government of the United States can take if it were to control its welfare costs. Through encouragement and imposition of personal responsibility, the poor and low income earning Americans can develop means of generating individual cash, providing food, and housing. This would imply that most Americans would be either middle-income earners or high-income earners hence cash spent on social services, child development, targeted federal education and community development in low income earning societies would be minimal. Given this perspective, development of personal responsibility is a sure means of rising to the occasion (June & Mark, 2004). Agreeably, by bringing on board measures that can promote personal responsibility, the government can ensure pragmatic efforts of curtailing welfare expenditure. However, in case the government fails take into consideration such ideas of matching the welfare programs with the state payments could result to serious underestimations based on costs and expenditures (Mink & Rickie, 2003). As such, platforms that can promote personal responsibility and self-reliance among the poor and low-income earners are one of the strategic means of curtailing the cost of welfare expenditure. Government statistics show that the amount in form of aid that low-income earners in America get totals to $28,000 per annum. On the other hand, the poor pockets a total of $7000 per year (Eric & Glenn 2004). These individuals drain the government and the other agencies that involve in welfare facilitation vast amount of money every year (Marx, 2004). Nonetheless, policymakers assert that, if the government and non-governmental organizations can set in place initiatives and campaigns aimed at promoting personal responsibility among all individuals in America, then the cost of welfare could come down hence controllable. Promotion of personal responsibility means empowering Americans through growth and innovation. This is a sure way of liberating people from poor state and low-income activities to activities tailored to self-reliance (David, 2010). This in turn will build success on the welfare reforms, attain blocking of grants of all federal means back to the states and on the long run help millions of poor and low income earning Americans transform from dependency to prosperity and at the same time save taxpayers trillions of dollars (June & Mark, 2004). Through promotion of personal responsibility, people can liberate themselves from the Welfare Empire by incorporation of new programs such that communities would have incentivized lifelong characters of responsibility and successful models that care less about welfare and aid from the government. Furthermore, promotion of personal responsibility entails about rejection of centralized rationing and control of initiatives such as the Obama Care and resolute to establish mechanisms aimed at solving the problem of skyrocketed costs of welfare by enacting or creating broad systems of patient power (Cesar, 2005). When patients get empowerment and receive the relevant information, the cost of healthcare, and other related expenses that welfare settles will autonomously go down for every American (Howard, 2002). On the other side, studies show that the quality of healthcare in all American health care organizations will go up. This means that the quality of health will be high. Efforts opined to this move reveals that promotion of personal responsibility through growth and innovation can create options beyond the existing or current systems of Medicare (Mink & Rickie, 2003). Note that, promotion of personal responsibility will also foster the need for American seniors and any other individual wishing to remain under the current Medicare system can still do so. Nonetheless, anyone who wishes to have a wide variety of premiums with regular premiums should go ahead and purchase as many policies as they can afford. With reference to the research findings, as brought forward by the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, most of welfare funds go to people residing in food deserts where access to nutritious foods is a big issue and the cost of food is high. Therefore, promotion of personal responsibility by moving people residing in these food deserts close to urban areas where they can have easier access to healthier, nutritious, and affordable food could possibly help control the cost of welfare in this country (Cesar, 2005). However, you should note that efforts towards moving people to areas with sustainable food sources appears to be somehow difficult mainly due to reasons related to religion, sociology, and logistics (June & Mark, 2004). As such, promotion of work and personal responsibility would be a great factor towards addressing the problem. Ideally, creation of new farming technologies can solve the problem of reliance of welfare funds and aid. With reference to this solution, growing food on a large scale would involve new technologies of farming. Thus, if the concerned agencies can help grow food in large hydroponic farms all over America, farmers would need to put just a minute strain on the traditional soil farms. The Department of Agriculture in association with the Department of Treasury can take stance towards training farmers in food deserts to alternate crops grown in order to maintain healthier soils season after another (Mink & Rickie, 2003). As a result, efforts subjected to promotion of personal responsibility can lead to tremendous results in view of controlling the cost of welfare in the American Government. With such a stance, it will be agreeable that all Americans will have fairer, more secure, and encouraging economic growth since there will be reasonable expenditure by avoiding welfare programs (David, 2010). Through promotion of personal responsibility, the Government of the United States can create expansive opportunities far almost every American of any level of income generation and overhaul the welfare funding hence entitle systems responsible for controlling the cost of welfare. Portion of welfare assistance should be loans instead of grants Instead of giving poor and low-income earners welfare funds without any efforts, the government and the other involved organizations should resolve to give these people portion of welfare assistance in form of loans as opposed to grants (Marx, 2004). This will entail that, no individual will expect to receive free welfare assistance, a factor that can help promote personal responsibility and slow the growth of welfare cost thus control the cost of welfare in the government (Greenwood, Zvi, & Gregory, 2008). Despite the fact that the government of the United States acknowledges that, there are more than 23 million Americans living in food deserts and have their level of income is low, it also understands that giving these people grants is not the solution to their problems. In fact, observations conclude that this only makes them rely heavily on government support through aid and welfare programs (June & Mark, 2004). As stated earlier in this paper, one of the places that drain the largest sums of dollars in form of aid or welfare in America is food deserts. Findings tell us that, in these areas, the level of poverty is high, and residents earn very little making the areas prone to welfare assistance. With that in mind, the only sure way of controlling the cost of welfare, which happens to be in plenty in such places, is to give residents of food deserts portion of welfare assistance in form of loans instead of grants (David, 2010). By doing so, the government can be in a position to counteract the amount of funds spent on welfare assistance in people living in food deserts. Indeed, policy makers and other econometrics assert that, the only way that can produce a hundred percent solution to the issue of welfare cost control will be developing platform of giving loans apart from the usual grants (Eric & Glenn 2004). Growth and innovation can come along with intensified means of encouraging generation of income through various measures. Thus, availability of welfare funds portioned as loans can initiate pragmatic ways of curtailing the existing level of welfare cost. Therefore, by giving people subsidized loans instead of grants can help reduce the amount of funds directed towards welfare programs set aside to cater for people living in these areas (Howard, 2002). This means that, if people understand that they do not have to sit and wait for manner in form of welfare funds from the government, they ought to come up with initiatives responsible for generating income (Aiyagari & Ellen 2002). Corporate strategies and other responsible strategists believe that America has potential of keeping its interests and those of its citizens balanced provided the cost of welfare comes down. Cognitive findings from reliable sources make it clear that, in order to control the cost of welfare in the government, the government and the concerned organizations should provide welfare support in form of loans instead of the current method by which the government supports low-income earners and poor with grants (Marx, 2004). Ideally, organizations with initiatives such as the New York City’s Green Cart pushing are in the right tract towards controlling the cost of welfare in America. This is because, the initiative set out to woe money lending institutions and other well wishers to provide people residing in low income areas with subsidized loans in order for them to start their own businesses. With that respect, the message was clear and intriguing as the ambassadors of the initiative fostered introduction of selling foodstuff on roadside markets where market people moved their belongings from the main market to roadside markets by use of carts (Mink & Rickie, 2003). The New York City Green Cart initiative brought forward a systemic measure with intense power to bring down the cost of welfare, as beneficiaries would be able to cater for their medical support, insurance, education, and transport as well as other essential things that forces the existence of welfare programs (David, 2010). It astonishes that every single year; the Social Security Board of Trustees of America releases its report that outlines the financial security and the stability of the two largest federal programs in this country, Medicare and Social Security. According to the last year’s report, due to the increased pressure on Medicare and Social Security programs, baby boomers began to collect and the Americans started living longer (Howard, 2002). This is because of the point that funds are in a position to run out sooner than policy makers expected. Moreover, the slow rebound depicted by the economic growth and the high prices of energy are resulting to an accelerated deterioration of the fundamental aspect of “trust” that fund programs by Social Security. Following these factors that led to uncontrollable cost of welfare, propositions started fueling need to curtail the expenses incurred through welfare programs (Mink & Rickie, 2003). Documented evidence asserts that the arms of Social Security are two. This implies that the government has to deliver welfare support to two different entities under the Social Security (Marx, 2004). They include the Retirement in association with its program of the disabled and it aids over 11 million Americans. Sources predict that these funds will be inadequate in the near future. As a result, the need to curtail the cost of welfare spending is on the rise as experts put across that such a move is imperative for the well-being of Americans. Econometrics and other analysts set out that, America needs to initiate the policy of loans instead of grants whereby, in spite of giving the poor people and the low-income earners assistance in form of grants, the portion of welfare should be in form of loans (June & Mark, 2004). Ending welfare Analysts maintain that, instead of wasting time and valuable resources while contemplating the fate of those relying on welfare support, the government should go ahead and pass on a bill enacting the end of welfare and its programs (Eric & Glenn 2004). The backdrop of this need bases on the fact that, if people could wake on fine morning only to find out that welfare assistance is no more, chances are that they will rise up to the occasion with immediate effect (Howard, 2002). Knowing that what they used to get has ended will trigger a series of personal responsibility. As such, people will be able to ensure their survival through mechanisms other than depending on welfare support. For quiet a long time, the government continued to battle issue of ending welfare assistance with no considerable outcome. However, as time went by, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund board proposed an end to welfare funding to this sector. This is because; the board projected a possible lack of sufficient funds and resources for maintaining benefits attributed to this program through 2024. This meant that benefits that came along with the existence of this program would cease in support of welfare cost control initiative (Mink & Rickie, 2003). It is worth noting that, proposing the end of welfare would come along with the termination of existence of some organization that provide such services as they would nothing else left to take care of. However, this move would be great since the aim of this paper to set out measures that can lead to imperative control of welfare cost given the fact that this cost is running wayward (David, 2010). Following the facet that the United States Government might at risk of running low in cash due to high level of debts, policy makers are finding it cognitive to enact a bill that will ensure the end of welfare. This is a crucial move towards curtailing and considerably ending the cost of welfare (June & Mark, 2004). Suggestions directed towards end of welfare assistance portray a profound effort and a systematic plan that can save America huge sums of dollars. Currently, the Opposition is eyeing on proposing a bill that will see the end of welfare assistance, pension costs, and health care expenses (Marx, 2004). This would ensure that the amount of money used to support people claiming to be unable to host themselves without the help of the government welfare goes to congruent measures aimed at encouraging economic growth. Sources reveal that countries whose welfare cost is low have less level of taxation. On the other side, countries that have countless programs of welfare support tax their people large percentages of money and have less expensive forms of encouraging economic growth. America falls under the countries that tax their citizens heavily. Due to this spectrum, senior Americans are suffering in silence since the government taxes them large amounts of money yet they do not benefit as expected from these taxes (Howard, 2002). The onset of this stratagem of ending welfare is a sure attest towards supplementing the unstable aspect of uncontrollable budget. For instance, in places where the government census tract identifies as food deserts, there are measures which when taken these places can turn to be productive (Marx, 2004). The government through different initiatives can provide residents of these areas with seeds potential of producing large amount of food. In addition, there are ways of transforming the land into farmable land whereby the people living in these areas can rely on farming instead of welfare assistance. In the end, the government can now cut welfare support periodically. It is clear that the systems of increased cost of welfare are mounting unease among almost every American. As of today, the most significant facet in America is to control costs involved in welfare because they are running deep. Americans are getting the feeling that unsetting changes and profound systems are afoot since the vision and mission of welfare are dominating America’s political face and imagination (Mink & Rickie, 2003). The state is growing unstable, the budget is creaking, and the economy is lagging behind mainly because the cost of welfare is too exorbitant. The vision poses the question: How can America balance its state affairs with the competing aspirations of its societies. These aspirations range from virtue to wealth as compassion and dynamism (June & Mark, 2004). Simultaneously, policymakers are warning of deteriorating economic growth due to large funds injected into welfare programs. Given this momentum, analysts as well as the Opposition are gearing in new measures that articulate to cutting or simply ending welfare about sustaining the country’s economic development (Eric & Glenn 2004). Evaluation of the solutions As highlighted in the solution, one can see that the proposed recommendations will lead to curtailed welfare costs in the US following the fact that the solutions provides a platform whose responsibility is to engage in lobbying support towards aiding eradication of food deserts in low income earning areas. With reference to the goals and objectives set forth by the proposed solution, there is potential of restoring accessibility to health foods through enlisting support from potential leaders and strategic community input (Marx, 2004). As such, there will be provision of strategic policies from partners and other community based leaders. Additionally, the scope of the solution depicts a considerable energy with which the communities can achieve advanced and improved life and responsible decisions and mobilized lifestyles through provision of education to families and individuals living in low-income areas (David, 2010). Based on the outcomes provided by the stated solution, it is deducible that the recommendations brought forward by the ingredients of the solution measure to the standards of a pragmatic means of controlling the cost of welfare in America. For instance, in northern New York, the solution gives a measurable alternative with which community leaders and other supporters can employ in curtailing the cost of welfare (Howard, 2002). The concerned efforts can formulate the idea of market stimulation and encouragement of local business development. These measures are of paramount vitality due to their ability to provide economic viability and advance well being of communities with less availability of resources. Given the strategies laid down by the solution, which aims at giving portion of welfare in form of loans instead of grants, can have fresh moves designed to stimulate the flow of things like capital into the communities described as having low-income earners (Marx, 2004). Conclusion In this paper, it is identical that, the cost of welfare in government is running out of control given the number of programs it caters for. As such, the paper resolved to conclude by enlisting the overall facts responsible for solving the problem. However, a close and tangible evaluation of all the solutions reveals that the first solution is more suitable in addressing the initiative (David, 2010). This is because, solution one involves many stakeholders that include the government of the United States, the Department of Agriculture, and the other non-governmental organizations (June & Mark, 2004). It creates a network that has many shareholders in the task and provides crucial measures, strategies, principles, and facts that attribute to considerable and achievable solutions with much ease at less cost. Believably, the fist solution provides a rationale effort towards curtailing or controlling the welfare cost in America given the idea that they drain this country lot of funds in form of grants and aid. Data given in this paper shows that, the essay has a clear development of an initiative and a closer address of the issues present. References Aiyagari, S. & Ellen R. (2002). "The optimum quantity of debt,". Retrieved on June 16, 2012 from Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pp 447-69. Cesar, M. (2005). "Entrepreneurship, Wealth Inequality, and Taxation," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 8(3), pp 688-719. David, T. (2010). Unfunded liabilities and uncertain fiscal financing. Retrieved on June 16, 2012 from Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 57(5), p 600-619. Eric, M. & Glenn H. (2004). "Federal Government Debt and Interest Rates”. NBER Working. Greenwood, J., Zvi, H. & Gregory W. (2008). "Investment, Capacity, Utilization, and the Real Business Cycle," Retrieved on June 16, 2012 from American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pp 402-17. Howard, G. (2002). The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure, and Effects. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. June, A. & Mark, S. (2004). Social Welfare: A History of American Response to Need. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Marx, D. (2004). Social Welfare: The American Partnership. Boston: Pearson. Mink, G. & Rickie, S. (2003). Welfare: A Documentary History of U.S. Policy and Politics. New York: New York Univ. Press. Wenli, H. (2002). "Entrepreneurship and government subsidies: A general equilibrium analysis". Retrieved on June 16, 2012 from Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 26(11), pp 1815-44. Read More