Is Welfare Really the Answer?
Thomas G. West, author of “Poverty and the Welfare State” vehemently argues that welfare reforms have been unsuccessful because they have worsened “under-class” dependency on government aid; because the underclass lack self-support, sacrifice, and responsibility; and because of deteriorating family values. However, on the opposing side Sarah Drescher argues that welfare reforms have inadequately addressed gender inequalities and have reinforced sex-segregated work and family roles, thereby worsening the “feminization of poverty.” In the following we will take a closer look at both sides of the spectrum and explore the opinions presented by both West and Drescher, analyzing the validity of their arguments and trying to find which, if either, is correct.
A professor of politics, Thomas G. West, as we stated above is convinced that welfare reforms, in place of helping or bettering the “under-class,” in fact worsen their situation by increasing their dependency on government aid. He claims that not only has the welfare reforms worsened the condition of the recipients, it has actually put them in, as social critic Myron Magnet says, “an impoverished intellectual and emotional development that generally imprisons them to failure.” Saying, that instead of going out and getting a job, many people men and women, prefer to “loaf” around and rely on welfare to support their lazy way of life. This attitude, as West claims, rejects the qualities that most Americans admire, and in fact claims that it is working in low-paying jobs that many Americans have learned the basic skills of showing up on time, being pleasant to customers and the boss, and persevering in getting the job done. However, the “under-class” views these jobs as “dead-end” and their pay as “chump change.” He holds that we should return to the welfare politics that where practiced before the 1960’s, meaning equal opportunity for all, with government support only for those who are truly unable to provide for themselves.
Author Sarah Drescher says that West is fundamentally wrong, and that the problem isn’t that welfare recipients are lazy, but it is because the welfare program itself is such that it doesn’t allow people to break out of the poverty cycle. In her article titled “Why Welfare Fails: Addressing the Pre-Existing Gender Inequalities Contributing to the Feminization of Poverty,” she holds that modern welfare politics “force single mothers to choose children or wages.” She argues that the current system of Welfare in the United States “fails to address gender inequalities which contribute to the feminization of poverty, ignores the role of the primary caregiver as a labor worthy of compensation, and ultimately denies women full citizenship benefits because of its ignorance.” She calls for change in the system. Requesting that welfare polices address the problems contributing to the feminization of poverty. She warns that unless these changes are made and then mirrored by social policy initiatives on several fronts, economic prospects for many women and children will continue to be grim.
It is hard to say who is right and who is wrong in this debate, both provide strong and valid points in their arguments. However, I find myself to tend more towards the view that West takes rather than that of Drescher. Although I sympathize with the single mothers who have not had all the opportunities for education and advancement that many have, I still can not help but return to the thought of “they got themselves into it.” Now, I’m not saying that there are not extenuating cases in which some people are truly unable to work and provide for themselves, for instance an accident that paralyzes or disables a person in some way, a father or the primary wage earner unexpectedly dying or leaving, or some other mishap that may befall a family or individual. In these cases, along with West, I agree that the government should step in had help support the individual or family. What I don’t agree with is when perfectly able-bodied people choose remain on welfare because they are too lazy to get a job, and find that “working the system” is easier and even pays more.
As to Drescher’s idea that there is a biased or sexist side to the welfare program that forces single mothers to choose between making money and being with their children, I have a hard time understanding how she arrives at such a conclusion. Since it is the welfare program that allows the woman to stay at home with their children instead of seeking a wage-paying job. However, I do agree with Drescher in the idea that being a primary caregiver is an important role and that a mother should be able to stay with her children. What I don’t agree with is that mother not teaching her kids the importance of work and teaching her children not to work, but to be dependant on the government for substance. There is definitely an inherent problem with the welfare problem, and it does need to be fixed, but I don’t think the issue is whether or not it is biased for or against women, but rather a cultural and socio-economic problem that needs some serious changes, regardless of who the recipients are.
