• You will identify a current social issue, then locate and summarize 2 articles concerning different viewpoints on the issue, using the Points of View website. You must access the Points of View website through the UMUC Library database. You will prepare a brief summary (in table format) in which you summarize the views of each of the 2 articles, and also compare and contrast the quality of the information sources. This assignment will allow the student to demonstrate competency in Information Literacy and proficiency in Technology Fluency, by exploring a current sociological issue, and presenting findings in a table format.

Instructions: For this assignment, you must: 1. Clearly define and focus on a current sociological issue. You

should go to the Points of View website (accessed through the UMUC Library databases) and identify a current sociological issue to explore in this assignment.

 2. In the Points of View website, select two different points of view

for the particular social issue you have selected . For example, you may select a pro view and a con view, although the range of viewpoints may vary for the particular issue. After you have selected a topic and identified 2 viewpoints, you should check with your instructor and let them know the topic and the articles you have selected. Once your instructor has authorized or confirmed your topic and articles, then proceed to the next step.

 3. Evaluate the quality of arguments presented for the 2 different

viewpoints (see the list of questions below).In order to evaluate the 2 viewpoints, you need to address the following 8 questions for each article: What is the complete citation or reference for the article (author,

title, date, etc)? Present in a standard citation format (e.g., APA

style)What is the main idea of the viewpoint expressed?What are the author?s credentials and affiliations?What is the support for the author?s viewpoint? That is,does the

author quote statistics, scientific or government reports? Or does the author use narratives, personal anecdotes or experiences?

Does the author present a fact-centered or value-centered argument?

How current is the information?Are references and/or a bibliography included in or at the end of

the article?Who is the intended audience? 4. Summarize and communicate the answers to the questions in a

clearly-presented table format (word-processed). 5. Optional: Provide a paragraph, presenting your own view on the

social issue and the support for your view, directly below the summary table.

 To present your comparison of the 2 viewpoints and articles, you will need to present the summary information (i.e., answers to the questions above) in table format. You should use a word-processing program (e.g., Word, WordPerfect) to prepare the table in a document; or you may prepare a table using the TFE in WebTycho and submit to your assignments folder. The additional formatting functions need to be applied to the document or TFE posting: (1) font size 12 point; font face Times New Roman(2) Spell checking(3) Title for table (centered above the table)

Article 1: Point: Welfare is the Best Way to Eliminate Poverty.

EBSCO Publishing   Citation Format: AMA (American Medical Assoc.):

NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/help/?int=eds&lang=&feature_id=AMA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

Reference ListWitherbee A. Point: Welfare is the Best Way to Eliminate Poverty. Points Of View: Welfare [serial online]. June 2011;:2. Available from: Points of View Reference Center, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 24, 2012.<!--Additional Information:Persistent link to this record (Permalink): http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=12462319&site=eds-live&scope=siteEnd of citation-->

Point: Welfare is the Best Way to Eliminate Poverty. Thesis: We need to remember that the wealth of a nation lies first and foremost in the well being of its people.

Summary: United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced his New Deal legislation in 1935 with the Social Security program, which also included a small program aimed at providing emergency funds for those in need. However, it was not until the 1960s that social welfare expanded under President Lyndon Johnson to include housing, Medicare, Medicaid, and a more extensive program to give temporary cash assistance to families with young children. In spite of the obvious deficiencies in programs to alleviate poverty and the need for more funding, welfare programs continue to be pushed to the forefront of political campaigns, and are targeted for state and federal budget cuts.

IntroductionIn 1776, during the revolutionary period of thinking known as the Age of Enlightenment, two important documents surfaced. Americans know 1776 well as the date of the American Declaration of Independence and the start of the American Revolution against Britain, but economists know it too, as the year that Scotsman Adam Smith wrote his famous text, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The correlation in dates is more than a coincidence; the principles of laissez-faire economics that Smith promoted argued that self-interest was the most efficient use of resources in a nation's economy, while the public welfare, or the common wealth, was merely a by-product. Smith further argued that government and personal efforts to promote the common good, work much less effectively than do free markets. While some prominent Americans including Alexander Hamilton, disagreed with Smith's treatise, his notions of free enterprise quickly became part of the American sense of how economics would work in the new world. As the young nation matured, however, it became clear to many that the principles of social equality and justice embodied in the Declaration of Independence did not always square with the economic principles of unbridled capitalism.The steady economic growth that followed the American Civil War reached its pinnacle toward the end of the nineteenth century and in the first two decades of the twentieth. A select few industrial families - Carnegies, Astors, Rockefellers, and others - amassed astonishing fortunes and unharnessed a growing disparity between rich and poor in America. The Great Depression of the 1930s made it clear once and for all that a nation built on principles of individual freedom and opportunity as put forth in the American Declaration of Independence, required a public system of social welfare to ensure that the health and hope of its people would not be crushed by an impersonal economic system.History of WelfareA welfare state is defined as a government, or other entity made up of private corporations, federal or state government and non-profit organizations, that assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. This welfare state, not to be confused with a welfare society, creates a safety net of basic needs, which are considered to be a citizen's right and the ultimate reason for people to enter into a covenant with a governmental body. Thus, the words of the Declaration of Independence:"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced his New Deal legislation

between 1933 and 1936, creating what some believed was a welfare state. The First New Deal in 1933 included short-term work and emergency relief programs. The Second New Deal in 1935 and 1936 included the Social Security Act to provide financial assistance to the elderly and the handicapped, paid for by employee and employer payroll contributions. While most of Roosevelt's programs were temporary work programs such as the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA), he also included a small program under The Federal Emergency Relief Act passed by Congress in May, 1933, with an initial fund of $500 million to help those in need. Over the next two years a total of $3 billion was distributed. Most of this money went to Home Relief Bureaus and Departments of Welfare for Poor Relief. However, it was not until the 1960s that social welfare expanded under President Johnson to include housing, Medicare, Medicaid, and a more extensive program to give temporary cash assistance to families with young children called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The New Deal of the 1930s did not substantially alter the distribution of power within American capitalism, and some even argue that Roosevelt's policies prolonged the depression by seven years, and that American business itself would have hired more workers if they had not been hampered with mandatory minimum wages, unemployment insurance, labor unions and more. But many of the programs established during the New Deal, were lifelines for hundreds of thousands of destitute people.These programs underwent surprisingly few changes until the 1990s, when social welfare program reform became a central issue for political candidates, and for both the Republican Congress and the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton. Since that time, AFDC (now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF) has become harder to get, harder to keep, and of less monetary value relative to the cost of living. Moreover, we have become used to measuring the success of welfare reforms by counting the number of "cases" taken off government lists and the amount of money cut from the program.Before we cut any further into a program designed to assist our most vulnerable citizens, it is worth asking ourselves whether the conditions it was designed to address have really improved so much since the 1930s, and whether we, as a nation, can afford to let economists continue to define social justice.Working in AmericaAccording to recent numbers from the US Department of Health and Human Services, there were a little over 1.3 million households receiving TANF during any given month in 2005, less than half the number of families who received help before the 1996 reforms were put into effect. Since the 1960s, the portion of the American population

to receive temporary help in a given year hit its highest point at 5.5 percent of the population in the year the reforms were put in place. The average over the past four decades is closer to 4 percent. If these figures seem at all high, then we should remember that during the same period, unemployment in the United States has hovered between 4 and 10.5 percent. In fact, economists agree that unemployment is always to be expected in our economy, with most policymakers believing that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary to prevent a rise in the cost of living. In human terms, this means that at any given time, between 4 and 11 percent of Americans who want to work will be unable to find employment.However, unemployment statistics do not account for those who have given up the job search as fruitless, and more importantly, they do not account for the millions of Americans who are unable to find full time work, or who are working full time, but not receiving enough income to support their families. At only $6.55 per hour, the federal minimum wage is worth significantly less than it was in 1975, and is inadequate to provide the basic needs of an American family. According to 2008 federal guidelines, a family of four who depend on the earnings of one full-time minimum wage earner is considered to be living below the poverty level, currently set at $21,200.Some examples of federal programs that use these guidelines in determining eligibility are:* HHS: Community Services Block Grant, Head Start, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, Children's Health Insurance Program* Department of Agriculture: Food Stamps; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs* Department of Energy: Weatherization Assistance* Department of Labor: Job Corps, Senior Community Service Employment Program, National Farmworker Jobs Program* Legal Services Corporation: Legal services for the poorSome recent provisions of Medicaid use the poverty guidelines; however, the rest of that program (accounting for roughly three-quarters of Medicaid eligibility determinations) does not use the guidelines.Other major programs that do not use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (and its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, the Earned Income Tax Credit program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's housing assistance programs, and the Social Services Block Grant.US Department of Housing and Urban Development studies reveal that approximately 4.9 million households in America are now unassisted low-income wage earners paying more than half of their limited incomes in rent. These families, though an essential part of the US

economy, live on the very edge of absolute poverty. Because low-wage and part-time jobs rarely include health or retirement benefits, low-wage workers are not in an economic position to deal with the crises that all Americans confront periodically: health problems, natural catastrophes, domestic disputes, or temporary lay-offs.Losing the Fight against PovertyDespite the level of poverty in our economic system, Temporary Aid to Needy Families has never been a particularly ambitious program. Accounting for only a sliver of the vast federal budget, TANF ignores those without children, or those with grown children, and has only ever been available to families whose desperate financial circumstances puts the physical health of their dependent children in peril. The benefits provided come with a time limit (currently 60 months accumulated over one's lifetime), and with significant conditions that often include job searches, placing children in child care programs, job training programs, and frequent, time-consuming in-person visits and document reporting to a local administering agency.In the process, TANF applicants open up the details of their financial, medical, professional, legal, and domestic lives to the state. Though the amount of benefits varies by state, even the more generous states do not provide enough money to raise recipients from abject poverty. In Washington State, for instance, a family of three with no income and assets valued at less than $1,000 receives a grant of $546 per month to cover housing, food, transportation, utilities, and all other expenses. The average monthly rent for a Washington State apartment currently ranges from $530 to $730 per month.A Nation's WealthIn spite of the obvious deficiencies in our programs to alleviate poverty, welfare programs continue to be pushed to the forefront of political campaigns, and are targeted for state and federal budget cuts. This is due to our continuing sense that TANF and other welfare programs are, in some way, an act of giving free handouts to the undeserving, as opposed to an act of leadership. Supporters of continuing cuts to TANF funding often fall back on cultural references to notions of individual responsibility while pointing to welfare recipients who seemingly don't want to work, who are viewed as looking for a "free ride," or who lack the motivation to join the workforce.After 200 years of economic history, however, we have learned by experience what Adam Smith failed to include in his theory that the impoverished and the unemployed are as essential to a capitalist economy as are the robber barons and the CEOs. If we are to hold true to that other text from 1776, we need to remember that the wealth of a nation lies first and foremost in the welfare of its people. No investment is more important.Ponder This

• What is author's main argument for a public system of social welfare?• Is the author's argument based more on fact or opinion? Cite

examples from the essay to support your response.• In your opinion, does the author use welfare and unemployment

statistics effectively to support her argument? Why or why not?• Analyze the statement: "We have become used to measuring the

success of welfare reforms by counting the number of 'cases' taken off government lists and the amount of money cut from the program." In your opinion, does the author convincingly argue that this is the wrong approach? Why or why not?

• Does the author convincingly argue for a public system of social welfare because "the wealth of a nation lies first and foremost in its people"? Explain.

BibliographyBooksGallaway, Lowell E. and Vedder, Richard K. Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America. NY: New York University Press, 1997.Gould, Arthur. Capitalist Welfare Systems. New York: Longman, 1993.Herrick, J. & Stuart, P. Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History in North America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.Karger, Howard Jacob. American Social Welfare Policy: A Pluralist Approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2005.King, Desmond S. Actively Seeking Work?: The Politics of Unemployment and Welfare Policy in the United States and Great Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.Marmor, Theodore R. America's Misunderstood Welfare State: Persistent Myths, Enduring Realities. New York: Basic Books, 1990.PeriodicalsBauer, Jean W., Bonnie Braun, and Patricia D. Olson. "Welfare to Well-Being Framework for Research, Education, and Outreach." Journal of Consumer Affairs 34.1 (Summer2000 2000): 62. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3113567&site=ehost-live.Besharov, Douglas J., and Peter Germanis. "Welfare reform--four years later." Public Interest (Summer2000 2000): 17. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=3241062&site=pov-live.Christopher, Karen. "Welfare as We [Don't] Know It: A Review and Feminist Critique of Welfare Reform Research in the United States." Feminist Economics 10.2 (July 2004): 143-171. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13607366&site=ehost-live.

Cohen, Adam, and Hilary Hylton. "Who Should Still Be On Welfare?" Time 154.5 (16 Aug. 1999): 24. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 3 Oct. 2008 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=2129263&site=pov-live.Conniff, Ruth. "The Right Welfare Reform." Nation 22 July 2002: 5.FLETCHER, CYNTHIA NEEDLES, MARY WINTER, and AN-TI SHIH. "Tracking the Transition from Welfare to Work." Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 35.3 (Sep. 2008): 115-132. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 3 Oct. 2008 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33750912&site=ehost-live.Forbath, William E. "Social rights, courts and constitutional democracy: Poverty and welfare rights in the United States." Democratization 12.24 (Dec. 2005): 725. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=19215999&site=pov-live.Goldstein, Fred. "Welfare vanishes as poverty soars." Workers World 4 Feb. 2009 http://www.workers.org/2009/us/welfare_0212/.Hoffman Jr., Earl Dirk, Barbara S. Klees, and Catherine A. Curtis. "Overview of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs." Health Care Financing Review 26.357 (02 Sep. 2004): 1. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=21956573&site=pov-live.Houppert, Karen. "For Her Own Good." Nation 274.4 (04 Feb. 2002): 20-24. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6092496&site=ehost-live.Kotlikoff, Laurence J. "Fixing Medicare." Forbes 174.1 (13 Dec. 2004): 50.KUTTNER, ROBERT. "THE STATES ARE ENDING WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT--BUT NOT POVERTY." Business Week (12 June 2000): 36-36. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3168213&site=ehost-live.Midgley, James. "The United States: welfare, work and development." International Journal of Social Welfare 10.4 (Oct. 2001). Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5304165&site=ehost-live.Miller, Oronde A., and Kristin J. Ward. "Emerging Strategies for Reducing Racial Disproportionality and Disparate Outcomes in Child Welfare: The Results of a National Breakthrough Series Collaborative." Child Welfare 87.2 (Mar. 2008): 211-240. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33553793&site=ehost-live.Mitchell, Lorelei B., et al. "Child Welfare Reform in the United States: Findings from a Local Agency Survey." Child Welfare 84.20 (Jan. 2005): 5. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=15783348&site=pov-live.Moore, Stephen. "A Success to Trumpet, and Protect." National Review 52.3 (21 Feb. 2000): 37. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 3 Oct. 2008 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=2764884&site=pov-live.Mulroy, Rachel. "How Welfare Benefits All of Us." Change.org 23 Feb. 2003 http://news.change.org/stories/how-welfare-benefits-all-of-us.Powers, Pamela. "What happened to the War on Povery?" People's World 1 Feb. 2011 http://peoplesworld.org/what-happened-to-the-war-on-poverty/. "Social Security Act of 1935." Social Security Act of 1935 1.34 (12 Jan. 2009): 1. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=21212308&site=pov-live.Zuckerman, Diana M. "Welfare Reform in America: A Clash of Politics and Research." Journal of Social Issues 56.4 (Dec. 2000). Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4335769&site=ehost-live.WebsitesArchiving Early America (2008). The Declaration of Independence. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.htmlLucidcafe Library (2008). Adam Smith, Philosopher. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jun/smith.htmlHunger Study (2006). Receiving TANF or Government Assistance Tables. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.hungerinamerica.org/who_we_serve/demographics/income/government_assistance.htmlUS Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2008 Federal Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtmlWashington State Department of Social & Health Services (2008). TANF and Support Services. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/f2ws03esaapps/onlinecso/tanf_support_services.aspRent.com (2008). Washington State Rentals. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.rent.com/rentals/washington/These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Publishing.

~~~~~~~~By Amy Witherbee

Co-Author: Geraldine Wagner

Geraldine Wagner is a freelance writer and editor living in upstate New York. She has published numerous feature articles, weekly entertainment columns, technical texts, and two non-fiction books. She is a graduate of Syracuse University's Maxwell School with a Master's degree in the Social Sciences. She teaches sociology courses at Mohawk Valley Community College in Utica/Rome, NY and professional writing at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse.

Copyright of Points of View: Welfare is the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Article 2: Welfare Programs Create a Sense of Entitlement.

EBSCO Publishing   Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.):

NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/help/?int=eds&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

ReferencesBadertscher, E. (2011). Counterpoint: Welfare Programs Create a Sense of Entitlement. Points Of View: Welfare, 3.<!--Additional Information:Persistent link to this record (Permalink):

http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=12462321&site=eds-live&scope=siteEnd of citation-->

Counterpoint: Welfare Programs Create a Sense of Entitlement. Thesis: Despite the changes made during the mid-1990s, the United States welfare system still needs reform.

Summary: The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Act of 1996, also known as "workfare," instituted tough new rules that required welfare recipients to find a job in order to maintain benefits. The problem, however, is that many available positions are low-paying, service-sector jobs, and welfare recipients remain below the poverty line. In addition, workfare does not address other challenges faced by welfare recipients including transportation and childcare issues. State and federal governments need to continue working with local authorities to think of new and innovative ways to fix these problems. Welfare is best served by private charity, including faith-based organizations. Individuals and local organizations should promote personal responsibility to eliminate the causes of poverty.

IntroductionDespite the changes made during the mid-1990s, the United States welfare system still needs reform. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Act of 1996, also known as "workfare," instituted tough new rules that required welfare recipients to find a job in order to maintain benefits. The new rules required benefits recipients to engage in work-related activities as measured by states' declining welfare rolls. The problem, however, is that many available positions are low-paying, service-sector jobs, and welfare recipients remain below the poverty line. In addition, the cost of TANF is substantial. TANF spending in 2006 exceeded $13 billion. Available spending for fiscal year 2008 was $16.5 billion.State and federal governments need to continue working with local authorities to think of new and innovative ways to fix these problems. The best solution is for governments to focus on economic growth. Welfare is best served by private charity, including faith-based organizations. Individuals and local organizations should promote personal responsibility to eliminate the causes of poverty, such as teen pregnancy and drug addiction.The public welfare system in the United States stands in severe need of reform. Welfare reform in the mid-1990s created the system known

as "workfare," which required welfare applicants to secure a job in order to receive benefits. This system has helped give welfare recipients a new sense of self-respect, as well as focus on job training and skills. The problem, however, is that current workfare policies often do not take into account the logistics -- for example, how can a welfare recipient, who does not have a car, get to work when public transportation is unavailable? Also, single parents find it difficult to work outside the home and care for their children at the same time.The larger issue is whether the federal government should even be involved in public welfare. For many years, this issue was left to state and local authorities, as well as to private charity. The federal government would do better to focus on economic growth and job creation, as well as establishing a tax structure that encourages private giving.History of WelfareFor the first 160 years or so of US history, there was no federal system of public welfare. Relief for the poor was left largely to the states, local authorities, and private charity. The post-Civil War era saw a rise in public welfare, but reformers found alternative solutions that reduced the spending of public money.The federal government entered the picture during the 1930s, as a response to the poverty brought on by the Great Depression. In addition to large-scale public works programs, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" program directed cash assistance to poor people. The 1935 Social Security Act, for example, created the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), the predecessor of TANF.President Lyndon B. Johnson dramatically expanded public welfare during the 1960s, with his "Great Society" program, which expanded on the "New Frontier" policies proposed by President John F. Kennedy. Among other things, this initiative helped open the ranks of public welfare to African Americans and other minorities, who previously had been discriminated against. The Johnson administration also produced the Medicare program of healthcare assistance. (This program was dramatically expanded in December 2003, when Congress passed the Bush administration's proposed prescription drug benefit.)TANF is a block grant program providing assistance to states to help needy families through their own implementation of welfare programs. TANF came about as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. In 2003, President George W. Bush proposed a welfare reform agenda that would increase the amount of time people work and provide additional resources for families, especially for children. Subsequent legislation reauthorized TANF and strengthened rules. For example, now states are required to reduce welfare numbers based on their 2005 levels instead of 1995. In 2008, legislation was enacted to standardize the cost allocation

method states use for reporting.Welfare Out of ControlBy their very nature, government programs tend to grow out of control. Politicians like to spend money in order to keep constituents happy, and so it is very difficult to convince Congress not to spend more. The New Deal began as a response to the problems of the Great Depression, but it laid the groundwork for a "culture of entitlement." Instead of trying to work harder, many people began believing that the federal government owed them a living. Public assistance was no longer seen as something temporary, to receive only for a short time; for many, it became a way of life.We need to keep in mind, of course, that "entitlements" don't just favor the very poor. There is, for example, also the issue of "corporate welfare," in which the federal government provides cash bailouts to troubled companies or industries. Businesspeople, too, can become dependent on the "nanny state" to bail them out of financial difficulties. Recent examples include the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 designed to bailout and stabilize the financial industry and proposed bailouts of the major automotive manufacturers.How to Fix the ProblemAmerica's public welfare system faces many problems, and offers no easy solutions. It is not possible simply to do away with the current system immediately. This is partly because of the realities of politics -- current recipients don't want to give up benefits, and politicians don't want to anger constituents.In the short term, the federal government needs to increase its partnerships with state and local authorities in order to provide benefits. At the same time, Congress needs to tighten up the TANF legislation. This would mean working out the logistical problems that make it hard for recipients to get well-paying jobs. Faith-based organizations such as churches and synagogues also have an important part to play, by returning welfare to its origins in private charity.In the long term, fixing welfare means large-scale cultural reform. Parents need to help their children make better life choices, by convincing them to stay in school and avoid teenage pregnancy and drug use. Long-term reform also means working to change the "culture of entitlement" into one that views hard work and personal achievement as more important than government assistance.ConclusionAmericans must move away from the "culture of entitlement" that has caused well-intentioned welfare systems to spiral out of control. Welfare reform should continue to promote the importance of self-reliance and a strong work ethic. Assistance should be temporary, so that recipients are encouraged to return to the workforce. The federal

government should drastically reduce its role in public welfare, focusing instead on improving the economy and reducing taxes. Private charities, religious groups, community organizations, and individuals are better suited for providing welfare to those in need. These third parties often have other sources of funding besides the federal government and are often located in communities where people live. Charities and faith-based organizations have missions that are compatible with the plight of needy families and have vested interest in improving the communities where they are located.Ponder This• What is the author's main argument for welfare reform?• Is the author's argument based more on fact or opinion? Cite

examples from the essay to support your response.• Does the author convincingly argue that "the best solution of all is for

governments to focus on economic growth"? Explain.• Does the author convincingly argue that welfare is "best served by

private charity, including faith-based organizations"? Explain.• Does the author convincingly argue that it is the role of community

organizations "to promote personal responsibility to eliminate the causes of poverty, such as teen pregnancy and drug addiction"? Explain.

BibliographyBooksGilens, Martin. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (May 24, 1999).Schram, Sanford F. and Samuel H. Beer. Welfare Reform: A Race to the Bottom? Woodrow Wilson Center Press (November 5, 1999).PeriodicalsAlfred, Mary V. "WELFARE REFORM AND BLACK WOMEN'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT." Adult Education Quarterly 57.4 (Aug. 2007): 293-311. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26049759&site=ehost-live.Baskerville, Stephen. "From Welfare State to Police State." Independent Review 12.3 (Winter2008 2008): 401-422. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27880951&site=ehost-live.Blau, David, and Erdal Tekin.. "The determinants and consequences of child care subsidies for single mothers in the USA." Journal of Population Economics 20.4 (Oct. 2007): 719-741. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26920348&site=ehost-live.Carr, Howie. "No habla ingles? No welfare." The Boston Herald 27 Apr.

2010 http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1250307.Cherry, Robert. "But It Works." Commonweal 26 Sep. 2008: 7+.Cloward, Richard A., and Frances Fox Pwen. "Finessing the Poor." Nation 207.3 (07 Oct. 1968): 332. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 16 Oct. 2008 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=13094682&site=pov-live.Devine, Donald J. "Welfare Reform Fantasyland." Human Events 58.23 (17 June 2002): 10. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6850191&site=ehost-live.Editorial: A better approach to welfare must be out there." The Daily Republic 3 Feb. 2011 http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/49832/.GATTA, MARY, and LUISA S. DEPREZ. "Women's Lives and Poverty: Developing a Framework of Real Reform for Welfare." Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 35.3 (Sep. 2008): 21-48. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33750908&site=ehost-live.Gemelli, Marcella. "Understanding the Complexity of Attitudes of Low-Income Single Mothers Toward Work and Family in the Age of Welfare Reform." Gender Issues 25.2 (June 2008): 101-113. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33937617&site=ehost-live.HARRIS, DEBORAH A., and DOMENICO PARISI. "Welfare and Family Economic Security: Toward a Place-Based Poverty Knowledge." Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 35.3 (Sep. 2008): 97-113. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33750911&site=ehost-live.HASSETT, KEVIN A. "Cronies against Capitalism." National Review 60.5 (24 Mar. 2008): 7-7. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31220460&site=ehost-live.Hubert, Cynthia. "California contemplates ultimate reform - no welfare." Sacramento Bee 4 Jun. 2009 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/06/04/69467/california-contemplates-ultimate.html.Koball, Heather. "Living Arrangements and School Dropout Among Minor Mothers Following Welfare Reform." Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) 88.5 (15 Dec. 2007): 1374-1391. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27355873&site=ehost-live.Marks, Alexandra. "Evidence that many on welfare welcome reform." Christian Science Monitor 91.0 (25 June 1999): 2.Meyer, Jack A. "Assessing welfare reform: work pays." Public Interest (Summer99 1999): 113. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 16 Oct. 2008 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=2310421&site=pov-live.Monroe, Pamela A., et al. "We Make our Ends Meet Good": Coping Strategies of Former Welfare-Reliant Women. Journal of Loss & Trauma 12.3 (May 2007): 199-221. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25084867&site=ehost-live.Morales, Cecilio. "Has Welfare Reform Helped the Poor?" America 181.5 (28 Aug. 1999): 16. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=2227631&site=ehost-live.Pekow, Charles. "House Committee Approves Welfare Reauthorization Package." Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 22.22 (15 Dec. 2005): 7-7. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19288658&site=ehost-live."The government is right to pursue those who "play the system" but must not punish lone parents." New Statesman 15 Dec. 2008: 4+. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35655427&site=ehost-live.Waddell, Brian. "Limiting National Interventionism in the United States: The Warfare-Welfare State as Restrictive Governance Paradigm." Capital & Class (Summer 2001): 109-139. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 4 Feb. 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4827056&site=ehost-live.These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Publishing.~~~~~~~~By Eric Badertscher

Co-Author: Marlanda English

Dr. Marlanda English served as an executive coach and consultant specializing in organizational development, process improvement and online professional development tools. She earned a Doctor of

Philosophy degree in business with a major in organization and management and a specialization in e-business from Minnesota's Capella University. She also earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering and a Master of Science in Manufacturing Engineering from Northwestern University.

Copyright of Points of View: Welfare is the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.