POLI 2151 Chapter : WelfarePolicy
AFDC: Goal was to redistribute wealth. Was the largest “program?”
-Was an entitlement program. If you meet the requirement, it was yours to have. No
conditions to be met, behaviors to be followed.
-Originated in the 1930’s. Popular program initially (e.g. WWII widows)
-In 1994, AFDC helped 14 million. 8 million of this were children. Made up less than
1% of what the federal gov’t spent its money on. Very different from what occurs in
most other industrialized countries.
-To qualify, a woman had to be single and have kids. Could not have a man living in
your house. They would do spot checks. This discouraged marriage.
-Even though it was a national program, (fed govt set minimum requirements) there were
was still a lot of room for maneuvering by the states.
-In 1996, if you were living in LA the need-standard there was $1217 a month for a
family of three… The benefits? $190 cash a month + $313 in foodstamps.
-Cash assistance varied greatly. Maine: 400-something in cash assistance. MS: 120-
something in cash assistance.
Welfare: Income maintenance program.
The Magnet Hypothesis: That state policy makers believe that welfare recipients know
how much welfare benefits are in neighboring states and that their state would become a
welfare magnet if they increased benefits. This has led to competition between states to
lower benefits.
-Resident Requirements: Some say this violates the Interstate Commerce Act. Ruled
unconstitutional for both welfare programs eventually.
The Migration Hypothesis: Belief that welfare recipients move to get the best benefits.
Logic: people move across states to get better jobs, why not welfare.
^Both hypothesizes are part of the same idea: “Race to the Bottom” (states giving
welfare recipients lower benefits to keep leeches out)
Criticism: Magnet hypothesis rests on the assumption that welfare recipients know what
the benefits are in other states.
MISCONCEPTIONS:
“W.R. have six kids”
-No, they have on average 2 kids. Same as normal population.
“W.R. are on drugs”
-drug testing.
“W.R. are all minorities”
-Most are caucasion. In 2003, there were 35.8mil who were living below the poverty
line. Of those, 8.7mil were black, 9 mil. Were Hispanic, 24mil were white.
-Florida got sneaky. They were trying to get W.R. to go to work. One of the problems
was that all of the business-people thought W.R. were drug users. The gov’t was
wanting to alleviate concerns, so they administered the SASSY test that identified drug
users. When they had probable cause (failing score) they required WR to take a drug
test. In FL, 15% of WR failed the sassy. They all took drug tests. In the end, only 5%
failed drug tests.
stigma issue: embarrassment of being a WR created a sense of worthlessness.
Punished for working: On AFDC, for every $3 you earned, you lost $2 in wlf benefits.
Govt encouraging Single Parent households by discouraging marriage as noted above.
“The AFDC created dependency that was transgenerational (e.g. kept the cycle of poverty
alive)”
-Support: Over 50% of women who were raised on AFDC, grew up to receive it.
-Support: Social Scientists—those who are eligible but didn’t take the benefits, their kids
were less likely to grow up to take the benefits (33%).
WAIVERS: By the 1980s, we saw that AFDC wasn’t working very well. People saying
its making poverty worse. Public sentiment turning negative. Feds allow states to
experiment. A state could file for a waiver, it could kick you off of welfare after 2
months.
Feds told states “Do whatever you have to do to get people off welfare. We don’t care
how you do it”.
Missed
_____________________________
Looking at:
Old Age Insurance<- totally administered by the federal govt.
Poverty system<- states; allowed to pick and choose who they cover.
Why policy making looked like it did in the US in 1930:
Populism- started in the mid 1800s on the west coast. Made some inroads into the
South (makes sense, because there was a ton of poverty in the South), ex: Huey P. Long.
-In the south, race was used as a dividing line in populism, racism screwed it up. White
elites were able to keep the unifying
-How was the South able to dominate the US Senate in 1935 when the Social Security
Act was passed?
- Committee Chairs: Incredibly powerful. They can keep their committee from ever
discussing a bill, thus keeping it from ever reaching the senate floor. Seniority is what
gives you a committee chair. In the south, there was only one party (Dems). This means
the same old dudes kept their seats.
- Filibusters: Requires a supermajority to break.
- Republicans didn’t want social security, Roosevelt needed them to pass Social
Security Act. They made up about 28% of the senate at the time. So, you would think
this would be fairly easy-- there was 70% democrat—but 27% of the senate was a
southern democrat: lots of things about the new deal that they did not like. Specifically
what they objected to in the SSA was that it covered everyone (didn’t want to cover
blacks)-- thought this would undermine the agricultural system (tenant
farmer/sharecropper farmer system).
- In order to get the southern democrat vote, the SSA had to exempt domestic workers
(maids, etc.) and agricultural workers. (these groups get added in later though, in part
because the black population becomes increasing influential in the north and demands
rights across the board for their race) Also required that the system be run by the
states.
-Believe there should be more control over govt by the people
-Demanded the right for the masses to right wrongs
-Bypass the state legislature with large petitions
-Referendum votes
-About economic security for working class citizenry
Comparative perspective for the US: Britain and France.
“Why do people describe our system as fragmented?”
Ch1: Colonialism drove the welfare programs because it became an “us vs. them”
process. If you didn’t fit the idea of the community being built, you were screwed.
Social Security: very popular. People think they’re entitled across the board.
-Did fix the poverty problem of the elderly population… percentage is a lot lower than it
was.
___________________________________---
I. Stages of the Process
A. Problem Recognition and Definition
1. Problem definition is how a problem is understood and discussed. This helps
determine whether or not problem is noticed because it has the potential to
capture the attention of the disinterested. Problem definition involves the active
manipulation of images of conditions by competing political actors.
B. Agenda Setting
1. It is the process by which a problem becomes a member of a set of problems that
have been deemed worthy of governmental attention and/or action.
2. Types of Agendas
a. Mass Agenda
b. Institutional Agenda
C. Policy Formulation
1. The development of policy solution or mechanisms for solving public problems.
2. Types of Formulation
a. Routine Formulation
b. Analogous Formulation
Document Summary
If you meet the requirement, it was yours to have. No conditions to be met, behaviors to be followed. 1% of what the federal gov"t spent its money on. Very different from what occurs in most other industrialized countries. To qualify, a woman had to be single and have kids. Could not have a man living in your house. Even though it was a national program, (fed govt set minimum requirements) there were was still a lot of room for maneuvering by the states. cash a month + in foodstamps. The magnet hypothesis: that state policy makers believe that welfare recipients know how much welfare benefits are in neighboring states and that their state would become a welfare magnet if they increased benefits. This has led to competition between states to lower benefits. Resident requirements: some say this violates the interstate commerce act. The migration hypothesis: belief that welfare recipients move to get the best benefits.
