The Welfare State

The great depression of the 1930's coupled with post World War II era resulted in a change for more compassion within all western democracies. There arose the need for government intervention to try and alleviate the disparities brought about by capitalism and the harsh realities of the market cycle. With this newfound compassion several social assistance programs aimed at alleviating poverty were undertaken, most notable of these were Old age Pension, Unemployment Insurance and Welfare. These are the three programs that I will focus upon in my essay and highlight the public sentiments and perceptions, as I try and debunk some of the mysteries. That programs are rights claimed by all citizens of we as a civilised society should not view recipients as burdens on society.

With the a new deal at the end of the Second World War the United States and Canada introduced programs to fight the purveyance of poverty amongst their respective citizens. The industrialisation of the economies of these nations produced tremendous new wealth to these countries as was never seen before. The widespread nature of the benefactors of this post-war industrialisation created an abundance of wealth and the sentiments needed to create a just society. The increase in wealth of these nations gave these governments the mandate and flexibility to introduce new programs such as unemployment insurance, education, old age pension, transportation, healthcare, welfare, and many more to help curb the extremities of the market cycle. When these programs were introduced they were considered a great achievement and a sign of a civilised world, and all citizens were eligible to get some assistance if dealt a wrong hand by the economy. However in the last couple of decades things have changed, with the election of conservative governments a new breed of politicians have emerged who are questioning the necessity of a universal welfare system. Through misinformation and fear tactics they have convinced some citizens that the welfare system, as we know is not working and should be disbanded. These people with ulterior, self-interest motives continue to advocate their views without giving any solid proof, or at best skewed statistics about the nature of social assistance recipients.

The image of social assistance recipients as lazy people, single mothers with many kids, immigrant or visible minorities is a false portrayal of the average recipient. For example, most Landed Immigrants that come to Canada since the early nineties do not qualify for social assistance for ten years, from their time of arrival even though they pay taxes. The average recipient is far from the stereotype cast by the manipulating politician or news media. He or she is the average next-door neighbour and usually goes on social assistance as a last option when in dire need of help and stops ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The benefit of being on social assistance for a person is not as great as some misinformed fellow citizens think it is. Studies have shown that if a single person were to be on welfare in Ontario today he would receive about $521 a month. If we were to break down this figure, about $400- $450 goes toward rent and he or she will be left with $70- $120 to spend on food, transportation and other expenses. When the income is broken down its incentive value to stay on welfare for a very long time is very discouraging. Only people who have no other alternative will be forced to depend on it, such as the disabled or elderly and these people have a right in any society to be properly cared for. They have either already exhausted their youth or are unable to work for a living due to their illnesses. The portrayal of the welfare recipient as a parasite to society, by the media intentionally or not has created an insensitive society towards the needy. This kind of mentality should be changed because the needy could actually be your next-door neighbour or a family member who is too ashamed to tell you he or she is in need of help. The welfare system was set-up to make sure that the essential needs of citizens were met and to make sure that they did not fall below the poverty line.

Some of the favourite terms used by anti-welfare program advocates are "The silent majority" and "survival of the fittest." The term "silent majority" has been used by some groups, who mostly have self-interest in the failure of these government programs, have argued that most of the citizens who did not complain publicly were against the welfare program and that the government was taking advantage of their silence. The action of the government does not reflect the views of the majority when it comes to welfare programs. The truth on the other hand is far from it. As Schwartz points out that "evidence from a succession of public opinion polls indicates that a solid majority of Americans backed the government's effort to reduce poverty from start and continue to do so." The so-called silent majority is actually the biggest supporters of the programs. The silent majorities are in-fact quiet because they think the government is doing the right thing and there is no need to say anything. Few self-interest groups on the other hand use the silence to stir trouble by using terms like Silent Majority to confuse and legitimise their idea as a worthy cause by pretending to stand for the people without giving an evidence of wrong doing by the government.

As is evident by the skewed reality that Murray portrays. In "Losing Ground," he states that if "Harold" and "Phyllis" had not been given a more amenable option and Harold would have had to toil in a dead-end menial job to support his family, this was a better option for society and the Harolds. The child would not have had much of a future, as scarcity of resources leads to less options and opportunities in life. And also more tension in the household and increased violence not to mention the perpetuation of subjugation of women. Choosing to live off AFDC and Harold working as he chose fit is really the better option as the child does have both parents to care for it and more opportunities in life.

Since the late eighties and early nineties the general public has come to the conclusion that the welfare system needs reform. People were asking questions like," why should my hard earned money be wasted on programs such as welfare." with the recession of the early nineties these kind of sentiments grew even stronger. The promise of reforming welfare and reducing taxes by Mike Harris's PC party pushed out Bob Rae's NDP government in Ontario. But if we were to compare the fact on whether welfare was a failure the answer is a strong no. For example most welfare recipient stay on welfare for one to two years while in between jobs. This means that even if people take welfare they will eventually contribute enough money from their working days to offset the help they received. On the other hand other programs such as, subsidised education for college and university students most of the time only help the middle and upper middle class of the society. Studies have shown that most of university and college students come from the upper class. On average these families have two to three kids who will end up graduating from universities. The government covers roughly 60% of the cost of university education which when converted to dollars ends up being about four to five years worth of welfare assistance. If two people in a family go to university we are talking about eight to ten years worth of government assistance.

The same people who were unhappy with the welfare system and voted in the PC government in Ontario are the benefactors of greater assistance than the average welfare recipient is. Yet another case is the old age pension plan. The system does not guarantee the taxpayer that he or she will be able to collect any money by the time they retire yet you are supposed to pay for it. If taken in financial terms there is no value for the taxpayer and elected government officials know about it but will never address the issue for, addressing it would be political suicide. Seniors who usually vote in high number have leverage on the elected government. Welfare recipients on the other hand do not have such a strong voice to strong-arm the government. The large volume of people that go through the system added with the short length of time they are on assistance makes it hard to organise an effective advocate for the welfare system.

The work of any government is to give services to its citizen and make sure their life is as simple and efficient as possible. To achieve this goal government collects taxes from every individual citizen that is employed in this country. The money collected by the government is redistributed back to the system through all sorts of government programs. The introduction of welfare has had a tremendous impact in reducing poverty in the United States. In the fifties and early sixties there were people who had full time jobs and were still living below the poverty line but with government assistance the rate dropped substantially. But people like Anderson a former chief domestic aide to President Reagan have argued that the drop in poverty level in America was the result of a booming economy of the private sector and not the government programs. Anderson strongly points this out without giving solid evidence. These kinds of unsubstantiated remarks, made by a senior government official is irresponsible and leads to the perpetuation of ill conceived notions about social assistance programs and recipients.

On the other hand people like John Schwartz give concrete evidence to show their ideas as we can see in the following passage. "Perhaps the best overall indicator of the substantial progress made by the nation in battle against poverty after1960 is that, by the second half of the 1970 only 4-8 percent of the American public remained beneath the poverty level compared with about 18 percent in 1960." By using sample studies taken, Shwartz gives detailed numbers that shows the introduction of government programs reduced poverty by sixty percent in America. The numbers show that the social assistance system is the biggest hidden asset The United States or Canada has and that it is working well.

As we can see by some of the above example the welfare system in Canada and United States has been wrongly portrayed as a program that has been bleeding the taxpayers of their hard-earned money. For in depth study of this wrong assumption reviles that the welfare system has actually helped reduce poverty tremendously in these nations and increased the standard of living of most citizens. As shown above the majority of the population has benefited from a successful social assistance system. The program has worked well as it was envisioned and continues to do so. Social assistance is an integral part of Canadian and American societies and should stay for as long as there is a civilised working social system where every person is citizen.