Abuses of Public Assistance Programs

Abuses of Public Assistance Programs What is the definition of a puzzling and mysterious system that attempts to provide for the indigent? It is called the welfare system, and it works in a very complicated manner (Weiss 5). The dictionary defines welfare as an “organized community of corporate efforts for social betterment of a class or group” (Weiss 7). The welfare system was developed as a program to help American citizens during the Great Depression. Originally the welfare system was simple, understandable, and provided uniform benefits to the nations poor—mostly women, children, and unemployed men. Many of the programs were based on the idea “that government can and should try to eradicate poverty with handouts of cash and other benefits” (Weiss 53). What made the early welfare programs simple was its ability to recognize “poor” as being the same from state to state and “relief was offered on a short-term basis, giving the neediest a boost and affording them the chance to get back on their feet” (Weiss 103). Through the years as the welfare programs expanded they became less need-based, more long-term, and less strictly monitored. The biggest argument against today 's welfare system is that it is more widely considered to be an entitlement program that contributes to an eroding social climate and with its lack of infrastructure promotes more problems such as cheating. A solution to this problem would be changing the requirements of the system and having more strict check-ins on recipients. Across the country there are millions of families that are considered to be in poverty (Weiss 37). Poverty struck the United States to a new extreme when the Great Depression hit (Weiss 37). The Depression started on October 23, 1929, which shocked many Americans because the 1920s decade “had been a good one for the stock market” (Weiss 37). Some stocks had been worth hundreds just the week before and now they were valueless. Many people lost their jobs, but that is not all that was lost in the depression, “bank after bank failed, and since their depositors ' accounts were not insured, thousands watched helplessly as their life savings vanished into thin air” (Weiss 38). Thousands were forced out onto the streets because they could not pay their rent or mortgage. The government did nothing to help these people because welfare programs didn 't exist everywhere in the United States at the time (Weiss 38). The Great Depression lasted nearly ten years and changed nearly every life that had to live through it (Weiss 38). The president at the time of the depression was Herbert Hoover, and he believed that “welfare wasn 't necessary […] things would soon bounce back to normal” (Weiss 38). During the 1932 election the New York governor Franklin D. Roosevelt ran against Hoover (Weiss 39). He vowed that if he was elected he would offer a “new deal” which included food for the hungry and jobs for the unemployed (Weiss 39) Roosevelt won the election and took his office oath in 1933. During his first few months in office Roosevelt got congress to pass fifteen new deal laws (Weiss 39). Not all of these new laws dealt with welfare, some “attempted to regulate business and banking in ways that would make future great depressions unlikely” (Weiss 39). There were many Americans, at this point in time, who didn 't like the idea of the government giving out relief (Weiss 40). The laws passed to help the unemployed “were relief programs. For the most part, though, they were relief programs of a special type—work relief” (Weiss 40). In the Americans point of view, work relief was the same as relief and they didn 't like it, and in a way, neither did Roosevelt (Weiss 41). He was convinced that, “the federal government had no choice but to step in and help out during the depression emergency. And he knew that his New Deal had succeeded in relieving suffering and giving the nation renewed hope. Even so, he was uncomfortable with the thought that his programs might prove to be the first step toward U.S adoption of federal welfare on a broad and permanent basis” (Weiss 41). The welfare system before 1996 was a simple and understandable tradition of guaranteeing cash assistance to the poor. The beginning of the system spawned during the Great Depression (Weiss 37). The beginning of welfare system started in 1935, in which the law required the federal government to help states pay for welfare programs (Weiss 42). Some of these programs supply financial aid to the old and disabled and offered public health care to the needy and job training to the jobless (Weiss 42). Many people thought of the welfare system as unorganized, but “individual programs were as deeply flawed and as unworkable as is the overall system” (Weiss 62). The number of people on welfare continued to grow in the 1970s as it still does today (Weiss 53). The true evolution of the welfare system began after welfare reform took place in 1996, which made welfare to the states more dramatic and very complicated. Before the welfare system began there were thousands of jobless Americans around the world. There were many factory owners who “cut production and lay off workers. Unemployment rises, and so does poverty. It 's not that workers don 't want jobs—the jobs just aren 't there” (Weiss 25). This is one of the major problems that was caused with poverty and why Roosevelt wanted to make the “new deal” (Weiss 39). Even if the nation 's employers did add jobs it is not clear how many of those jobs would be considered low wage, especially those that do not come with benefits, like health care (Rich 1). “There were 7.6 million jobless Americans in 1980, compared with 8.2 million in 1986”, and that 8.2 million did not include the thousands of people who had given up looking for jobs (Weiss 71). The many “new deal” laws that Roosevelt put into play were intended to help these jobless Americans. There are many types of poverty and non-poverty welfare programs. There is also, “a second group of social welfare programs [that] are non-means-tested. Such programs are open to people regardless of their financial need, and many who benefit from them are not poor at all” (Weiss 79). There was an organization called The National Welfare Right organization (NWRO), that “include platform issues centered on achieving adequate income, dignity, justice, and democratic participation” (Ernst 188). Social Security isn 't necessarily a relief program but it is part of the welfare system (Weiss 62). This program intends for men and women to “pay into the program throughout their working years. When they retired or lost their jobs, they could draw on the accumulated funds for assistance” (Weiss 41). Medicare is a non-means-tested program, that is intended to offer federal medical insurance to men and women over the age of 65 (Weiss 47). Unlike medicare, medicaid is intended to benefit people of all ages on welfare (Weiss 47) Another program that played a big role in the welfare system were the welfare-to-work programs, that included AFDC and TANF (Greenberg &Robins 910). The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was replaced in 1996 with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which, “supports many poor families in which one of more members has a disability” (Wamhoff & Wiseman 22). The Woman 's, Infants, and Children (WIC) was a means-tested program, “aimed at needy pregnant and nursing women, their babies, and children under age 4.” (Weiss 88). There are many other programs that are involved with the welfare system. Along with all these means-tested and non-means-tested programs there may be some requirements that one must achieve to be considered eligible. Anyone who seeks assistance through the means-tested programs, like AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid, his or her income level must be considered low enough to qualify (Weiss 79). But as for the people who benefit from non-means-tested programs, like Social Security and Medicare, they do not have to have a certain income level (Weiss 79). The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, “the heart of Johnson 's anti poverty program, included a provision that actually required the federal government itself to seek out those who might qualify for welfare and bring them into the system” (Weiss 60) Because one 's income level must be considered low enough to qualify for some welfare programs, some families lost their job purposely, just because they wanted the benefits of welfare (Jencks 1). Then once the family receives welfare, they begin to secretly work again so they could have welfare and job money (Jencks 1). But this is what most families did, they thought the only way to “keep their families together is to combine work and welfare, yet if they report they are working, the welfare department will soon reduce their checks by almost the full amount” (Jencks 1). This is one of the many ways cheating in the welfare system evolved. During the expansion of welfare there was only limited control on eligibility and the system was easy to fraud (Prenzler 1). The system was vulnerable to fraud because it was difficult to check and watch applicants for changing their circumstances, the “welfare providers were expected to be sensitive to the needs and circumstances of applicants”, and the anti-fraud measures did procedures that could put off urgent benefits (Prenzler 1). One of the old ways some people used to abuse the welfare system was by cheating the food stamp program (Weiss 54). The people who own or work at a store that accepts food stamps are required to know the rules and abide by them (Weiss 54). The store clerks are supposed to make sure that the stamps “go for food items and nothing else—no paper goods, cosmetics, health aids, or cleaning products, for example. They may not hand out more than 99 cents worth of change at a time. A shopper who pays for a 99-cent purchase with a $10 stamp must accept nine $1 stamps and 1 cent change. By law, $5 stamps and $10 stamps are never given in change. Store owners who break the rules, or who permit their clerks to do so, can be fined or kept from accepting food stamps in the future.” (Weiss 55). Store clerks say they get angry when customers will come in and buy something $4.99 and grab a few pieces of penny candy so the total will be $5.01, resulting in 99 cents change back, which would later be spent on alcohol or some sort of product the food stamps do not permit (Weiss 55). The food stamp system that is used these days is much different, just about all stores accept food stamps for any item one wishes to buy. But that doesn 't mean people still don 't find ways to abuse or cheat the system. If a person has a low enough income to be receiving food stamps, they should not be spending those food stamps on expensive or luxury items (O 'Conner 230). A second way that some families tried to cheat the welfare system is the lack of limitation of the number of children a single women can collect benefits for. There are many Americans that are convinced that thousands of girls are deliberately becoming pregnant for the express purpose of upping their AFDC payments. There are thousands of women across the country, “giving birth for no reason other than to make themselves eligible for benefits” (Weiss 58). There are also men and women not marrying each other because they know they will receive more money from the government if they are not married. A third way that some people cheat the system is by creating false identities for oneself, knowing that there is not enough employees to verify every identity (Weiss 7). For example, in the late 1970s there was a woman from Maine named Donna Gilbeau who “created three false identities for herself, claiming a total of eleven children. Not only did she apply for and receive aid under AFDC, but she also obtained food stamps, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with which to buy groceries” (Weiss 7). Gilbeau later admitted that she cheated the state and federal governments of over $70,000 over an eight year period. No one knows exactly how much money the government spends on supporting nonexistent men, women, and children every year (Weiss 8). Another problem with the current welfare system is that it increases crime. While poverty continues to rise, “it will do great harm to our society. Poverty [...] is a major cause of crime delinquency” (Meltzer 110). When the welfare reform took place it took measures that were aimed at excluding welfare recipients who had participated in bad behavior in the past (Gustafson 647). The welfare reform measures were also aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in bad behavior while receiving government benefits (Gustagson 647). The welfare system is very complicated and is abused everyday. There are many aspects about the welfare system that can and should be changed that would avoid it being abused so easily. There are so many recipients who believe that “no matter how much the United States poured into its welfare programs—millions of dollars at first, then billion—more always seemed to be required” (Weiss 43). People always wanted more than what they received which caused them to abuse the system. Recipients should be more grateful for the money they 've been given and spend it more wisely; instead of spending their food stamps on the things they want they should spend it on the things they need (Weiss 44). Another thing that can be changed in the system is to stop offering relief in the form of cash (Weiss 97). AFDC, WIC vouchers, and food stamps all hand out relief in “outright cash payments”, but this should be changed (Weiss 97). Instead of cash, “make welfare available on a loan basis […] not as a loan that recipients must repay when they go off welfare, but one that they may repay if they choose to” (Weiss 97). Handing out straight cash payments can cause the recipients to spend the money on items that they do not need (Weiss 100). If cash payments were to be changed to a loan basis program this could keep a closer watch on what the recipients spend their money on, which is something that needs to be done (Weiss 98). Another solution to welfare abuse could be the strengthening of marriage. In order to stop poverty, “it is vital to strengthen marriage; and to strengthen marriage, it is vital that at risk populations be given a clear factual understanding of the benefits of marriage and the costs and consequences of non-marital child bearing” (Rector 1). Women who do not marry and stay single often meet the income eligibility requirements for TANF; whereas, women who marry a spouse with an earned income offend do not, which in return reduces the want to marry (Rector 1). There are several actions that the government can take in order to strengthen marriage like “increase public awareness about the value of marriage and how to reduce illegitimacy” (Rector 1). Another action that can be taken to reduce the abuse of the welfare system is to make the right to vote stricter (Weiss 98). Sometime when welfare recipients vote, “they vote for their own interests—in favor of more generous benefits.” (Weiss 98). Limiting the right to vote to the more reliable welfare recipients who have repaid their old debts to society will cause the nation 's welfare bill to plummet (Weiss 98). There are many other actions that can be taken on by the government that can make the abuse of the welfare system less likely. These are just a few of the many ways that can make a major change in the welfare system. In order to answer the question, does the welfare system really help recipients, many factors must be investigated. The idea of welfare “was faulty to begin with […] and to make things worse, nearly all the programs grounded in it were poorly thought out, baldy designed, and carelessly run. They never stood a chance of elimination either poverty or the demand for welfare” (Weiss 54). Assistance to the poor, who were, in the past, easily recognizable anywhere in the United States now differs dramatically from state to state. Prior to 1996 the welfare system provided assistance without regard to details, personal circumstances, or time limits, and was vulnerable to fraud (Humphrey 137). It is very crucial for the welfare system to change its requirements so that it would be much more difficult to abuse the system. In 1996, when the federal welfare system was restructured, it gave up its discretionary powers to individual states which caused the system guidelines to become erratic across the nation as a result of state sovereignty (Humphrey 1). Therefore, any tool that tries to eradicate a problem, such as poverty, can not be subjective and mysterious; rather, it must be precise and diligent.

Works Cited
Ernst, Rose. “Working Expectations: Frame Diagnosis And The Welfare Rights Movement.” Social Movement Studies 8.3 (2009): 185-201. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Humphrey, Juliana. “The Untold Story of Welfare Fraud.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 35.3 (2008): 133-151. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Greenberg, David, and Philip K. Robins. “Have Welfare-to-work Programs Improved Over Time In Putting Welfare Recipients To Work?”. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 64.5 (2011): 910- 920. Business Source Complete. Web. 4 Dec. 2011.
Gustagon, Kaaryn. “Criminal Law: The Criminalization of Poverty.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 99.3 (2009): 643. MastaFILE Premier. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Jencks, Christopher. “The Real Welfare Problem.” The American Prospect. The American Prospect, 4 Dec. 2000. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Meltzer, Milton. Poverty In America. New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc, 1986.
O 'Connor, Alice. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in the Twentieth-Century U.S. History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001.
Prenzler, Tim. “Detection And Preventing Welfare Fraud.” Trends & Issues In Crime & Criminal Justice 418 (2011): 1-6. SooINDEX with Full Text. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Rector, Robert. “Marriage: America 's Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty.” The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 16 Sep. 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Rich, Motoko. “Many Low-Wage Jobs Seen as Failing to Meet Basic Needs.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 March 2011. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Wamhoff, Steve, Wiseman, Michael. “The TANF/SSI Connection.” Social Security Bulliten 66.4 (2005): 21. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Weiss, Ann E. Welfare: Helping Hand or Trap? Hillside: Enslow, 1990.

Cited: Ernst, Rose. “Working Expectations: Frame Diagnosis And The Welfare Rights Movement.” Social Movement Studies 8.3 (2009): 185-201. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Humphrey, Juliana. “The Untold Story of Welfare Fraud.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 35.3 (2008): 133-151. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Greenberg, David, and Philip K. Robins. “Have Welfare-to-work Programs Improved Over Time In Putting Welfare Recipients To Work?”. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 64.5 (2011): 910- 920. Business Source Complete. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. Gustagon, Kaaryn. “Criminal Law: The Criminalization of Poverty.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 99.3 (2009): 643. MastaFILE Premier. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Jencks, Christopher. “The Real Welfare Problem.” The American Prospect. The American Prospect, 4 Dec. 2000. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Meltzer, Milton. Poverty In America. New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc, 1986. O 'Connor, Alice. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in the Twentieth-Century U.S. History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001. Prenzler, Tim. “Detection And Preventing Welfare Fraud.” Trends & Issues In Crime & Criminal Justice 418 (2011): 1-6. SooINDEX with Full Text. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Rector, Robert. “Marriage: America 's Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty.” The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 16 Sep. 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Rich, Motoko. “Many Low-Wage Jobs Seen as Failing to Meet Basic Needs.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 March 2011. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Wamhoff, Steve, Wiseman, Michael. “The TANF/SSI Connection.” Social Security Bulliten 66.4 (2005): 21. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Weiss, Ann E. Welfare: Helping Hand or Trap? Hillside: Enslow, 1990.