# data[].attributes.body
Most notably, a 2015 meta-study of cash programs in poor countries found “no systematic evidence that cash transfer programs discourage work” in seven different countries: Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Philippines, Indonesia, or Morocco. Other studies of cash-grant experiments in Uganda and Nigeria have found that such programs can increase working hours and earnings, particularly when the beneficiaries are required to attend classes that teach specific trades or general business skills.

# data[].attributes.body
The second objective is eliminating penalties on increased earnings so low-income workers do not have to think twice about getting a pay raise or a better job. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a worker whose earnings grow from the federal poverty level to 150 percent of that level experiences the equivalent of a tax increase from 17 percent to 65 percent because of how welfare benefits phase out. Welfare reform should align phase-out rates so that as earnings increase, benefits decrease along a sliding downward scale at the same rate in all programs, as in the British system.

The third goal is granting maximum flexibility to local agencies and organizations so they can combine resources to address a wider range of obstacles to work than is allowed under current law. This is important because, according to Census data, most poor people who are not working do so mostly for reasons other than not being able to find a job. States should have the flexibility to combine resources to help cover costs associated with caregiving, auto repairs, moving, and whatever else is preventing someone from being able to hold down a job.

# data[].attributes.body
Lessons from Europe should help American welfare reformers to focus on three objectives. The first and most important is that all welfare programs should focus on getting people who can work into employment, or work training, as quickly as possible. Our programs currently work against each other. For instance, as economist David Autor has shown, even though work is required to receive temporary assistance or earned income tax credit benefits, America’s disability insurance program has become a de facto welfare program for some people who are fit enough to work but choose not to do so

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Both President Trump Paul Ryan Paul Davis Ryan At indoor rally, Pence says election runs through Wisconsin Juan Williams: Breaking down the debates Peterson faces fight of his career in deep-red Minnesota district MORE have said that welfare reform will be a priority after tax reform to enable people on welfare rolls to move back into the workforce. Reforming welfare is a good idea, not so much because people are gaming the "system," as Trump has said, but because welfare in America is not a system at all, and lacks a coherent approach to improving the lives of low-income people. Modernizing welfare into a safety net focused on upward mobility through work would fix this. It would also track with mainstream American values. Donald John Trump HR McMaster says president's policy to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is 'unwise' Cast of 'Parks and Rec' reunite for virtual town hall to address Wisconsin voters Biden says Trump should step down over coronavirus response MORE and Speaker

A majority of Americans, including 55 percent of people living in poverty, believe the purpose of welfare is to help people get on their feet, not just to dispense benefits. Eight in 10 low-income respondents believe working should be required to receive welfare benefits.

But our current approach to welfare does not track well with these American aspirations. Welfare in America is a patchwork of programs with differing rules and requirements, encouraging work in one program, discouraging it in another, and sometimes penalizing a recipient whose earnings increase. The largest - including Medicaid, food stamps, disability insurance, the earned income tax credit, temporary housing assistance and cash assistance - are each administered by different federal agencies.

Welfare reformers might draw some lessons from unlikely places, such as Scandinavia. While progressives like to uphold Nordic democratic socialism as a model for America, the Scandinavian welfare systems are arguably more pro-work than ours and could easily find Republican admirers in Congress.

For instance, to deal with declining labor force participation, Denmark eliminated permanent disability benefits for people under 40 and refashioned its system to make employment central. Sweden reformed its welfare system to focus on rapid transitions from unemployment to work. Their program lowers jobless assistance the longer one is on welfare. The Nordic model is more focused on eliminating reasons not to work such as caregiving or lack of proper training than providing income replacement.

Similarly, the British government combined six welfare programs with varying requirements into a single "universal credit." The benefit is based on a sliding scale and decreases as a recipient's earnings increase, replacing several differing formulas for phasing out of welfare programs with one. An evaluation of the new program, which encourages work, found that 86 percent of claimants were trying to increase their work hours and 77 percent were trying to earn more, compared to 38 percent and 55 percent, respectively, under the previous system.

Lessons from Europe should help American welfare reformers to focus on three objectives. The first and most important is that all welfare programs should focus on getting people who can work into employment, or work training, as quickly as possible. Our programs currently work against each other. For instance, as economist David Autor has shown, even though work is required to receive temporary assistance or earned income tax credit benefits, America's disability insurance program has become a de facto welfare program for some people who are fit enough to work but choose not to do so.

The second objective is eliminating penalties on increased earnings so low-income workers do not have to think twice about getting a pay raise or a better job. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a worker whose earnings grow from the federal poverty level to 150 percent of that level experiences the equivalent of a tax increase from 17 percent to 65 percent because of how welfare benefits phase out. Welfare reform should align phase-out rates so that as earnings increase, benefits decrease along a sliding downward scale at the same rate in all programs, as in the British system.

The third goal is granting maximum flexibility to local agencies and organizations so they can combine resources to address a wider range of obstacles to work than is allowed under current law. This is important because, according to Census data, most poor people who are not working do so mostly for reasons other than not being able to find a job. States should have the flexibility to combine resources to help cover costs associated with caregiving, auto repairs, moving, and whatever else is preventing someone from being able to hold down a job.

Scandinavia and Britain learned a while ago that successful welfare reform is not just about how much money a country spends on people who earn too little. It's really about how to help them find and keep a good job. It's time for America to catch up.
Ryan Streeter is director of domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute . He served as deputy chief of staff for policy for Indiana Governor Mike Pence Michael (Mike) Richard Pence Controversial CDC guidelines were written by HHS officials, not scientists: report Former DeVos chief of staff joins anti-Trump group Scott Walker helping to prep Pence for debate against Harris: report MORE , special assistant for domestic policy to President George W. Bush, and policy adviser to Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. You can follow him on Twitter @StreeterRyan .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America can reform welfare with important lessons from Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Both President Trump Paul Ryan Paul Davis Ryan At indoor rally, Pence says election runs through Wisconsin Juan Williams: Breaking down the debates Peterson faces fight of his career in deep-red Minnesota district MORE have said that welfare reform will be a priority after tax reform to enable people on welfare rolls to move back into the workforce.

# data[].attributes.body
But this concern has little basis in reality. One of the latest studies on the subject found that Medicaid has “little if any” impact on employment or work hours. In research based in Canada and the U.S., the economist Ioana Marinescu at the University of Pennsylvania has found that even when basic-income programs do reduce working hours, adults don’t typically stay home to, say, play video games; instead, they often use the extra cash to go back to school or hold out for a more desirable job.

But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely. It fails to account for the conclusion of the Prospera research: Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest beneficiaries. It’s true north of the border, as well. American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity, higher rates of high-school graduation, and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid, according to a 2015 paper from the economists Sarah Miller and Laura R. Wherry. Another paper found that children covered by Medicaid expansions went on to earn higher wages and require less welfare assistance as adults.

# data[].attributes.body
We must redesign this entire system. In the most prosperous nation in the world, it is ludicrous that children are growing up in the kind of deprivation we normally associate with developing countries. Simultaneously, we must ensure that no one is discouraged from growing their income or assets. One potential solution is a universal basic income, which would provide an annual benefit to every citizen. However, this idea comes with a hefty price tag and would either increase our national deficit or increase the marginal tax rate, both of which might be political non-starters. The simpler solution is a Negative Income Tax (NIT) which is potentially cheaper than our current poverty alleviation efforts. An NIT is a refundable tax credit which brings every household to the federal poverty level. The most effective way to do this is to decrease the credit slowly (for example, a $0.50 reduction for each $1.00 increase in earned income) so that there is never a penalty for hard work.

Researchers at the University of Michigan calculated what this might look like in practice. If a family had no income, their tax credit would be 100% of the poverty line ($20,780 for a family of three). If the family’s earned income increased to half the poverty line ($10,390), their tax credit would decrease to $15,585. The credit would phase out completely once the family’s income reached twice the poverty level ($41,560). This plan would cost roughly $219 billion per year and could be almost completely paid for by replacing most or all of our current poverty programs.

# data[].attributes.body
Meanwhile, welfare eligibility rules designed to encourage independence have achieved the opposite effect. For example, though many states impose strict work requirements, states which loosen these rules actually see recipients move to higher wage, higher benefit work, presumably because they have the breathing room to search for a good job rather than take the first one that comes along. Similarly, in states with strict limitations on recipient assets, poor families are less likely to own a car, making it nearly impossible to maintain employment in areas without public transportation. Even worse, some researchers are discovering a “cliff effect” in which welfare recipients immediately lose all benefits (including child care assistance) after a small increase in income. As a result, many parents turn down promotional opportunities because they would be ultimately worse off financially. Any parent would make the same decision if it meant the ability to feed their children and afford quality childcare.

# data[].attributes.body
The primary cash assistance program in the United States, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, served 68% of low-income families in 1996. Today, only 23% of poor families receive assistance. This change has been largely brought about by the imposition of five-year lifetime limits (states are allowed to set lower limits) and stricter eligibility criteria. Welfare caseload reductions have been solidly linked to the rise of deep poverty in America, family strain and increased foster care placements. 1.46 million US households (including 2.8 million children) now live on less than $2 per person, per day (the World Bank’s measurement of extreme poverty).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats and Republicans don't see eye to eye very often, but they can safely agree on one point: welfare doesn't work. Liberals are concerned that an ever-shrinking social safety net reaches fewer and fewer families in need. Republicans worry that welfare benefits create dependence. They are both right.

The primary cash assistance program in the United States, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, 68% of low-income families in 1996. Today, only 23% of poor families receive assistance. This change has been largely brought about by the imposition of five-year lifetime limits (states are allowed to set lower limits) and stricter eligibility criteria. Welfare caseload reductions have been solidly linked to the rise of deep poverty in America, family strain and increased foster care placements . 1.46 million US households (including 2.8 million children) now live on less than $2 per person , per day (the World Bank's measurement of extreme poverty).

Meanwhile, welfare eligibility rules designed to encourage independence have achieved the opposite effect. For example, though many states impose strict work requirements, states which loosen these rules actually see recipients move to higher wage, higher benefit work, presumably because they have the breathing room to search for a good job rather than take the first one that comes along. Similarly, in states with strict limitations on recipient assets, poor families are less likely to own a car, making it nearly impossible to maintain employment in areas without public transportation. Even worse, researchers are discovering a "cliff effect" in which welfare recipients immediately lose all benefits (including child care assistance) after a small increase in income. As a result, many parents turn down promotional opportunities because they would be ultimately worse off financially. Any parent would make the same decision if it meant the ability to feed their children and afford quality childcare.

We must redesign this entire system. In the most prosperous nation in the world, it is ludicrous that children are growing up in the kind of deprivation we normally associate with developing countries. Simultaneously, we must ensure that no one is discouraged from growing their income or assets. One potential solution is a universal basic income, which would provide an annual benefit to every citizen. However, this idea comes with a hefty price tag and would either increase our national deficit or increase the marginal tax rate , both of which might be political non-starters. The simpler solution is a Negative Income Tax (NIT) which is potentially than our current poverty alleviation efforts. An NIT is a refundable tax credit which brings every household to the federal poverty level. The most effective way to do this is to decrease the credit slowly (for example, a $0.50 reduction for each $1.00 increase in earned income) so that there is never a penalty for hard work.

Researchers at the University of Michigan calculated what this might look like in practice. If a family had no income, their tax credit would be 100% of the poverty line ($20,780 for a family of three ). If the family's earned income increased to half the poverty line ($10,390), their tax credit would decrease to $15,585. The credit would phase out completely once the family's income reached twice the poverty level ($41,560). This plan would cost roughly $219 billion per year and could be almost completely paid for by replacing most or all of our current poverty programs .

With this one simple policy, we can achieve many goals of both the left and right. Poverty would be eliminated overnight. Work disincentives would be removed. American bureaucracy would be significantly reduced. Families would be free to make financial decisions without government intrusion. And in the long run, we would save money. Childhood poverty alone costs the US $1.03 trillion (yes, trillion) per year. In the 21st century, eradicating poverty isn't complicated. We're just going about it in the worst possible way.
About the author:
Leah Hamilton, MSW, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Appalachian State Univ ersity. She received a BSW from Metropolitan State University of Denver, an MSW from the University of Denver and a PhD in Public Policy at the University of Arkansas. She served as a Foster Care Case Worker and trainer for five years in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Hamilton's research interests include poverty, economic justice, and social policy.

Guest has written 137 articles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Welfare Doesn't Work: And What We Should Do Instead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats and Republicans don't see eye to eye very often, but they can safely agree on one point: welfare doesn't work. Liberals are concerned that an ever-shrinking social safety net reaches fewer and fewer families in need. Republicans worry that welfare benefits create dependence. They are both right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welfare isn't just a moral imperative to raise the living standards of the poor. It's also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids.

Take, for example, the striking finding from a new paper from researchers at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago. They analyzed a Mexican program called Prospera, the world's first conditional cash-transfer system, which provides money to poor families on the condition that they send their children to school and stay up to date on vaccinations and doctors' visits. In 2016, Prospera offered cash assistance to nearly 7 million Mexican households.

In the paper, researchers matched up data from Prospera with data about households' incomes to analyze for the first time the program's effect on children several decades after they started receiving benefits. The researchers found that the typical young person exposed to the program for seven years ultimately completed three more years of education and was 37 percent more likely to be employed. That's not all: Young Prospera beneficiaries grew up to become adults who worked, on average, nine more hours each week than similarly poor children who weren't enrolled in the program. They also earned higher hourly wages.

This finding has direct implications for the United States, where a core mission of the Republican Party is to reduce government aid to the poor, on the assumption that it makes them lazy. This attitude is supported by many conservative economists, who argue that government benefits implicitly reward poverty and thus encourage families to remain poor-the idea being that some adults might reject certain jobs or longer work hours because doing so would eliminate their eligibility for programs like Medicaid.

But this concern has little basis in reality. One of the latest studies on the subject found that Medicaid has "little if any" impact on employment or work hours. In research based in Canada and the U.S., the economist Ioana Marinescu at the University of Pennsylvania has found that even when basic-income programs do reduce working hours, adults don't typically stay home to, say, play video games; instead, they often use the extra cash to go back to school or hold out for a more desirable job.

But the standard conservative critique of Medicaid and other welfare programs is wrong on another plane entirely. It fails to account for the conclusion of the Prospera research: Anti-poverty programs can work wonders for their youngest beneficiaries. It's true north of the border, as well. American adults whose families had access to prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of obesity, higher rates of high-school graduation, and higher incomes as adults than those from similar households in states without Medicaid, according to a 2015 paper from the economists Sarah Miller and Laura R. Wherry. Another paper found that children covered by Medicaid expansions went on to earn higher wages and require less welfare assistance as adults.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Busting the Myth of 'Welfare Makes People Lazy'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welfare isn't just a moral imperative to raise the living standards of the poor. It's also a critical investment in the health and future careers of low-income kids. Take, for example, the striking finding from a new paper from researchers at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago.

# data[].attributes.body
Furthermore, the Tax Foundation and Gallup polls research shows that many of the states that rely the most on federal benefits vote Republican.

# data[].attributes.body
A 2018 Rasmussen Reports survey found that 61% of Americans believe that too many people are dependent on government financial aid. Many of these respondents may not realize that they—themselves—benefit from federal assistance given to their state governments.

# data[].attributes.body
Housing assistance often takes the form of rental assistance.23 It includes 1.2 million units of public housing, privately owned subsidized housing units, and a voucher program that allows low-income renters to find their unit.24 The Housing Choice Voucher Program aims to ensure that low-income families spend no more than 30% of their income on rent.25 Local agencies administer it to 2.2 million families.26

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program is a similar welfare program that provides energy assistance and weatherization programs. Congress allocated $3.32 billion in block grants to the states for implementation of this program in 2020.27

# data[].attributes.body
The Earned Income Tax Credit is a tax credit for low-income families.
The credits lifted approximately 5.6 million people out of poverty in 2018, 3 million of whom were children.

# data[].attributes.body
Supplemental Security Income provides extra cash to help low-income adults and children who live with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

# data[].attributes.subject
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

# data[].attributes.body
SNAP is more commonly known as food stamps. The food voucher system helped more than 34 million people buy food in 2019. Another food-based welfare program is known as the Child Nutrition Program. In 2018, this program provided free or reduced-cost lunches to 29.7 million children costing the federal government $13.8 billion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Medicaid and the Child's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

# data[].attributes.subject
Medicaid and the Child's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

# data[].attributes.body
In October 2019, Medicaid helped pay for the care of more than 71 million low-income adults and children. The Affordable Care Act increased Medicaid coverage by 26%.14 It raised the maximum income level and allowed single adults to qualify.

# data[].attributes.headline
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

# data[].attributes.subject
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

# data[].attributes.body
Public perception of welfare, then officially known as the AFDC, soured significantly in the '70s. In 1976, President Ronald Reagan's campaign highlighted a case of welfare fraud and popularized the concept of a "welfare queen."9 He pushed for welfare reforms and warned of how welfare created a cycle of poverty.10  In 1996, President Bill Clinton created TANF as a replacement for AFDC, officially ending the original welfare system

# data[].attributes.headline
What Welfare is and what are the programs

# data[].attributes.subject
What Welfare is and what are the programs

# data[].attributes.body
Welfare programs are government subsidies for low-income families and individuals. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level

Some agencies help families who earn a percentage more than the federal poverty level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welfare programs are government subsidies to the poor. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2018, that's $25,100 for a family of four.

Welfare Programs in the United States

There are six major U.S. welfare programs. They are Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, Earned Income Tax Credit, and Housing Assistance.

The federal government provides the funding, while states administer them and provide additional funds. When the federal government reduces funds without lowering the states' responsibilities, it creates an unfunded mandate. For example, the 1998 reduction in food stamp administration costs added $5 million to state budgets.

Welfare programs are not entitlement programs. Those base eligibility upon prior contributions from payroll taxes.

The four major U.S. entitlement programs in the United States are Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and worker's compensation. Instead, welfare programs are based on a family's income. To qualify, their income must be below an income based on the federal poverty level.

On April 10, 2018, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to review work requirements for many welfare programs. The programs include TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance. Trump wants agencies to standardize work requirements between programs and states.

For example, food stamp recipients must find a job within three months or lose their benefits. They must work at least 80 hours a month or participate in job training. But several states, such as Alaska, California, and Nevada, have opted out of the work requirement. They say unemployment rates are too high. The executive order encourages agencies to make sure all states follow the same rules.

The Six Major U.S. Welfare Programs Myths Versus Facts

In 2016, TANF assisted only 23 percent of the families living in poverty. On average, a three-person family received $447 a month. Despite this help, they still live below the poverty line.

Welfare received a bad reputation due to President Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign. He portrayed the welfare queen who cheated the system to get enough benefits to drive a Cadillac. He also warned of how welfare created a cycle of poverty. As a result, 61 percent of Americans believe the government should provide jobs instead of welfare payments.

Fraud like Reagan described has been cut since 1996. That's when President Clinton created TANF out of the ashes of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The number of families "on the dole" dropped from 10 million before welfare reform to 1.9 million in 2017.

The new requirements were the reason for this decrease. Families who receive TANF must get a job within two years.

They might not get more money if they have another child. They can own no more than $2,000 in total assets. They can only receive TANF for five years or less in some states.

Medicaid also paid health expenses for 9.8 million blind and disabled people. The smallest category was 5.4 million low-income seniors. It paid for any health costs that Medicare didn't cover.

Child's Health Insurance Program. In addition to Medicaid, 6 million children received additional benefits from CHIP. It covers hospital care, medical supplies, and tests. It also provides preventive care, such as eye exams, dental care, and regular check-ups.

Food Stamps is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It gives food vouchers to 47.6 million people or 23 million households. They receive $133 a month on average. The total federal cost is $79.9 billion, of which $3.8 billion is administration. It requires recipients without children to work after three months. It waives the requirement for the 2.8 million who live in areas with high unemployment.

There's an additional food stamp program for nursing mothers and young children. The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children provides food or vouchers, education, and referrals to help feed pregnant women and children up to age six. In 2017, 7.7 million people received WIC each month. Of those, more than 75 percent were children or infants. ("WIC FAQ" U.S. Department of Agriculture. for 2013)

The Child Nutrition Program provides free or reduced-cost lunches to 30 million children. It costs the federal government $12 billion.

Supplemental Security Program provides cash to help the aged, blind, and disabled to buy food, clothing, and shelter. On average, roughly 8.4 million people receive $536 per month. Of those, 7.3 million are blind or disabled.

Earned Income Tax Credit is a tax credit for families with at least one child. They must earn less than $51,567 a year to qualify. In 2012, over 27 million received credits totaling $63 billion. That's a little more than $2,335 per taxpayer. EITC lifted 6.5 million people out of poverty, half of whom were children. It costs just 1 percent of the amount paid out to administer it. Unfortunately, almost one-fourth of the payments are in error. An unknown amount is fraudulent.

Housing Assistance is provided by 1.2 million units of public housing. The Housing Choice Voucher Program gives certificates to rent approved units. The subsidy allows them to pay no more than 30 percent of their income. Local agencies administer it to 2.2 million renters. This is the old Section 8 program. The Public Housing Agency allows​ some families to use the voucher to purchase a modest home.

Myths About Welfare Programs in General

Ironically, many of those with this belief live in states that receive the most aid. This disconnect is because the states receive aid in the form of federal contracts, grants, and tax cuts.

The residents don't realize that they themselves are benefiting from aid to their state governments.

In 2012, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that 47 percent of the population would vote Democrat no matter what. He claimed it was because they receive some type of federal assistance.

Instead, the states that rely the most on federal benefits vote Republican. They often aren't aware of how dependent they are on tax credits, such as the interest deduction for home mortgage interest. They only consider visible federal benefits, such as welfare checks or food stamps. As a result, they don't think the government has done much for them personally.

The research shows that welfare and food stamp recipients don't vote much. They are so low-income that they are too busy to try and survive to go to the polls.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Major Welfare Programs Myths Versus Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welfare programs are government subsidies to the poor. Recipients must prove their income falls below a target, which is some percentage of the federal poverty level. In 2018, that's $25,100 for a family of four. There are six major U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

(initial capital letter)Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.

QUIZZES

THIS WORD OF THE DAY QUIZ IS HARDLY A DODDLE!

But you can ace it no problem if you remember the words from September 7-13, 2020!

What does "Promethean" mean?

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2020

British Dictionary definitions for welfare

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Cultural definitions for welfare

Government-provided support for those unable to support themselves. In the United States, it is undertaken by various federal, state, and local agencies under the auspices of different programs, the best known of which are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

# data[].attributes.body
families enter and remain for long periods of time in welfare systems because of barriers to employment.

limited education, problems with mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal records, and chronically ill or deeply troubled children.

# data[].attributes.body
government should assist low-wage workers because they are trapped by major economic transformations beyond their control:
the decline of manufacturing and the loss of unionized, blue-collar jobs, and the simultaneous growth of the service sector, which has generated mostly low-wage jobs that offer few benefits.

difficult for workers without a college degree to obtain employment that can support a family.

# data[].attributes.body
The Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “promote the general welfare,” indicating that issues such as poverty, housing, food and other economic and social welfare issues facing the citizenry were of central concern to the framers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The national Constitution is a singular document, but it is not unique. All 50 states of the U.S. and Puerto Rico have their own constitutions, some of which -- through text or interpretation -- stake out approaches that are very different from the federal document. It is worth thinking about the alternative paths that these state documents take, and the possibilities that they raise, as we celebrate and critique the national Constitution on this Constitution Day.

This entry focuses on one area of significant difference between state and federal constitutions: their treatment of economic and social rights.

The national Constitution addresses economic and social rights prominently but with little specificity. The Preamble states that an overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to "promote the general welfare," indicating that issues such as poverty, housing, food and other economic and social welfare issues facing the citizenry were of central concern to the framers. However, the Bill of Rights has been largely construed to provide procedural mechanisms for fair adjudication of those rights rather than carving out claims on the government to ensure that individuals actually have any social and economic assets to protect. Efforts to convince courts of alternate constitutional interpretations have generally failed. The Supreme Court has ruled, for example, that while the due process clause of the 14th amendment ensures fair processes for welfare recipients, there is no underlying constitutional right to a minimum standard of living. Similarly, the Supreme Court has not found a general right to education derived from the more explicit constitutional guarantees of political participation and equal protection that might be deemed to presuppose an educational baseline.

Many state constitutions, in contrast, articulate positive rights to welfare, health, education, and the right to work. One of the most specific of these provisions, article XVII of the New York State Constitution, states that "the aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state...in such manner and by such means" as the legislature shall determine. The Constitution of North Dakota provides a similarly specific right to education, stating that "the legislative assembly shall provide for a uniform system of free public schools throughout the state." Alaska's constitution, adopted at the time of statehood in 1959, addresses the public health of state inhabitants, as does Hawaii's, which states that "the State shall provide for the protection and promotion of the public health." Finally, many state constitutions also address the affirmative right to work and the right to organize as members of trade unions. For example, the New York State Constitution states, "employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing." Several state constitutions also specifically address working hours and working conditions.

In adjudicating economic and social rights, state courts are often dealing with texts substantially different from and more specific than the federal constitutional treatment of these rights. But at a minimum, the state constitutional experience certainly demonstrates that these matters, critical to the general welfare, are of appropriate constitutional concern. In a different time, and with a different Court, the General Welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution might be linked to a more robust understanding of constitutional equality to give substantive meaning to the Bill of Rights. Given the textual support for this approach to federal constitutional interpretation, it is hard to see how even Justice Scalia could object.

Civil rights, Constitutional Interpretation, Education, Equality and Liberty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The national Constitution is a singular document, but it is not unique. All 50 states of the U.S. and Puerto Rico have their own constitutions, some of which -- through text or interpretation -- stake out approaches that are very different from the federal document.

# data[].attributes.body
The "individual" perspective holds that poverty is the result of personal failure—irresponsible behavior, bad choices, or immoral character.

individuals are poor because of system failures, such as the failure of the labor market to provide those who work with adequate wages.

Structuralists argue that government has a responsibility to assist those who cannot make it on their own.

# data[].attributes.body
President Bill Clinton's promise in the 1990s to "end welfare as we know it" and the associated legislation that went along with this mindset. There is actually no program called "welfare," but the term typically refers to monthly cash assistance grants provided to very poor families with children. The main welfare program today, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), was created in 1996 in an attempt to ensure that adult recipients worked for their benefits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society - Username

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society