Welfare

Under the old welfare system, founded during the Great Depression, the federal government provided fairly uniform benefits to the nation’s poor – mostly mothers and children – with out regard to the details of their personal circumstances, and with no time limit. But as the times changed, changes that should have been made years ago, didn’t become effective until the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in August of 1996. Now, welfare is left to the discretion of individual states. This is the way that welfare should have been all along. Even so, I feel that assistance should only be available to those with jobs or on some kind of temporary work leave (ex: injury, maternity).

The welfare programs of the Great Depression changed American values forever. I interviewed my grandfather on the topic, and he only agreed. Even though his family was poor, he was raised never to accept anything he didn’t work for.

“Men had pride back then, ” he recalled in a lecturing tone, “and supporting your family made you honorable, no matter what your job was. Then welfare came along and disrupted all of it. America was never supposed to be about giving hand-outs to the lazy, it was meant to provide opportunity for the willing.”

That’s why I feel the new changes in the system are exactly what this country needed. At present, Pennsylvania, like 31 other states, requires that recipients must find work within 6 months of receiving their first assistance payment and only allows transitional Medicaid and child care for a maximum of 12 months. A family can receive assistance for a lifetime total of 60 months, but families can receive assistance for 12 months after a birth that would be exempt from the lifetime total.

By limiting the amount of time a family can spend on welfare, the government has put a stop to generations of dependent and unmotivated citizens. They are now forcing those who once made excuses to make progress. The only unfortunate result of the time limitations is for those who still don’t take responsibility and find jobs. Since the vast majority of assistance recipients have children, that leaves those children as the direct victims. There is really no way to prevent this from occurring, except to put them back on some kind of assistance, disregarding the new laws.

Many critics suggest that getting the vast majority of welfare recipients into jobs will be difficult. While two thirds of the welfare recipients are either on assistance only for a short time, or on-and-off, the remaining third have proven unresponsive to prior attempts to find them lasting work. For some, the problems are concrete and potentially addressable such as lack of child care or transportation. To address the child care issue, the state has generously increased funding for day care programs. For others, notably those who have never held a job, the problems appeal greatly to humanitarians − poor health, lack of skills or confidence, or even lack of desire. These are very addressable problems. The government provides medical assistance; and adequate financial aid for those seriously considering a return to school. Lack of motivation can be dealt with using rather simple words: “You are now cut off of assistance, you better get a job”. It is not the government’s responsibility to provide motivation for those who don’t want to support their children. There are limits to what Americans should expect their government to do.

Over time the welfare system has fallen victim to tremendous abuse. American citizens as a whole are very confused. Some are shouting to care for anyone who can’t care for himself or herself in any way possible for as long as it takes. Others are busy opposing them, calling for an end to the welfare that made Americans so weak and dependant, creating the ultimate motivation: poverty. Then there are those that feel the government is personally responsible for finding jobs for those no longer eligible for the programs. That leaves the political viewpoint of those like myself: our welfare system, for the current social conditions, is just fine. It’s not too enabling but not likely to be taken advantage of either. There is no way to satisfy every opinion and so we are left to think of it logically. The working class citizens shouldn’t have to pay anymore than they do currently to support those on assistance. To increase assistance would increase taxes, and while the wealthy extreme-humanitarians may not mind, the average worker simply can’t afford it and probably would mind. Respectable, hard-working American citizens shouldn’t be held responsible for the income of the “unmotivated”.

(From www.planetpapers.com)

a) What was the aim of the old welfare system founded during the Great Depression? Why is the author dissatisfied with it?

b) What new changes did Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act bring about? Are these changes beneficial?

c) How did the author's grandfather feel about welfare program?

d) How long can a family get assistance from the state?

e) What are the negative consequences of the new welfare system? Who is at the biggest disadvantage?

d) What competing viewpoints does the author highlight in the essay? What viewpoint does he cling to?

e) Do you agree that “assistance should only be available to those with jobs or on some kind of temporary work leave”? Are there any other categories of citizens who need assistance from the government?

f) What is your opinion of the welfare system in Russia? What could be improved?

XV. Read the article and fill in the gaps with the linkers from the box. Do the old and infirm can sometimes be more at risk from relatives than from disinterested, but compassionate, strangers?

but / because / in the long term / either / as though / despite / particularly / luckily / given / of course / no matter / generally / the fact that / whether / yet

DON’T ASSUME FAMILY CARE IS ALWAYS
BEST FOR OUR ELDERLY

Lynsey Hanley
Monday July 23, 2007
The Guardian

Both my grandmothers are alive, well into their 80s, and living in their own homes (1)_______ being fairly confused about the whys and wherefores of daily life. My 89-year-old maternal grandmother is cared for exclusively by her immediate family – (2)______ my mum and dad, who live a few doors away, but occasionally by me, when my parents take a much-needed break − and she wouldn't want it any other way.

It sounds like the perfect arrangement, assuming that we don't all fall ill at the same time. My grandmother need not suffer the confusion or distress of getting to know outside carers, and the rest of the family can go about their lives knowing that they have done the right thing. Or have they? The nuclear family, we are told, is the best model for everything pertaining to the home, providing care, nurture, wisdom, comfort and dignity in old age.

Seeking to integrate the family with the wider community in the form of home helps and day centres smacks, to some, of absolving responsibility for one's nearest and dearest. (3)______ what happens when keeping it in the family exposes the elderly to more risk than if they were looked after by disinterested, but compassionate, strangers?

The recent Comic Relief-funded report on elder abuse, backed by the Department of Health, revealed that most abuse of older people takes place in their own homes and is carried out not by strangers, but by relations, most often spouses or grown-up children.

(4)_________ my nan is well cared for by her family in familiar surroundings. But looking inwards, and believing that it is only family members who are best placed to care for the elderly, is risky. The powerful myth of the all-beneficent nuclear family has filial carers in a vice-like grip. Carrying the weight of care for an elderly or ill person within a small family unit is, (5)_________, stressful: the mental and physical health of the primary carer (usually a woman) can be put in danger, (6)________ how rewarding caring is.

It is often said that good, paid-for carers, (7)________ for the very old and vulnerable, are hard to come by. I'm not surprised, (8)_______ how little they are paid and the negligible respect they are afforded by society as a whole − and often by the very people they care for. And (9)________, desperate to retain a hold on their social services budgets, local authorities lunge for cuts in care provision (10)________ the number of very old people is increasing.

There are decisions to be made. We can save money on carers and care homes by looking after our elderly relatives until they die; or we can accept that care costs, and (11)________ save for it or sell property to fund it; or we can accept the need to be properly taxed. This, of course, requires central government admitting, out loud, that affluence begets longevity.

Then there is our attitude to the family and its relationship to society as a whole. We can see the family as being integrated, or isolated, and either allow strangers in or hold them away from us. We can put our trust equally in others (12)________ they are related to us or not. We can be honest about how the nuclear family, for all its loveliness in photos, cannot sustain itself without wider support. It often feels (13)_________ we have taken that wretched statement of Thatcher's – about there being no such thing as society, only individuals and families – to heart, whether intentionally or otherwise.

There are many families who pride themselves on keeping the state at arm's length, either through having their fingers burnt by bureaucracy or incompetence, or because of sheer distrust. There is also the possibility that they abuse elderly people in their care and don't want anyone to find out. (14)________ they can do so and get away with it is one of the problems of a family structure that has its back turned on the community.

Ivan Lewis, the minister for care services, has commented that state provision for the elderly needs to be transformed because it was drawn up at a time when elder abuse was an “unknown force”. That, (15)________, was back in the olden days when everyone was nice to each other. It does not require an elephant's memory to remember that family dysfunction is nothing new; it was simply kept even more of a secret than it is now. Those elderly people whose lives were the business of the state were shunted into asylum-like homes and forgotten.

Legal frameworks the size of Westminster could be drawn up tomorrow with the laudable intention of eradicating elder abuse. But until we are capable of being honest as a society about what really goes on inside families – and about the limits of what they can provide for their members – before acknowledging the role that outsiders have to play, laws will not mean a thing.

a) Give English equivalents from the text for the following words and word combinations:

инвалид; относящийся к; пища; освобождение от ответст­венности; подвергать риску; плохое обращение с пожилыми; приносящий удовлетворение; уязвимый; недостаточное уваже­ние; удерживать контроль над; обеспечение ухода; дома престарелых; оказывать доверие кому-либо; поддерживать; это сходит им с рук; загонять в; искоренять.

b) Agree / disagree on the following statements. Give your reasons.

- The nuclear family is the best model for everything pertaining to the home, providing care, nurture, wisdom, comfort and dignity in old age.

- Seeking to integrate the family with the wider community in the form of home helps and day centres smacks, to some, of absolving responsibility for one's nearest and dearest.

- Most abuse of older people takes place in their own homes and is carried out not by strangers, but by relations, most often spouses or grown-up children.

- The powerful myth of the all-beneficent nuclear family has filial carers in a vice-like grip.

- Affluence begets longevity.

- There being no such thing as society, only individuals and families.

- State provision for the elderly needs to be transformed.

- But until we are capable of being honest as a society about what really goes on inside families – and about the limits of what they can provide for their members – before acknowledging the role that outsiders have to play, laws will not mean a thing.

c) Complete the table. Discuss your arguments in groups. Do you agree with the author?

XVI. Read the article. What facts concerning the social care system in Britain are worth special attention?