Beyond the rhetoric: shared responsibility versus the Contract with America.

Abstract

The Republican National Committee's (1994) Contract with America reminds us that social work is a normative discipline. The things we do and the programs we support have consequences for people. What we regard as good and obligatory, others view as bad and irresponsible. This is a time for action. But it is also a time for reflection - about our first principles. We need to cut through all rhetoric - right and left - that might blind us in our discussion of the Contract. We need to understand why the American public is disillusioned with many social programs. And we need to be accountable for our share of the problem. One first principle that I believe helps us sort out the current situation is shared responsibility. WHAT IS SHARED RESPONSIBILITY? Shared refers to common duties and obligations of caring to which all members and institutions of society are morally bound and answerable. In his thoughtful book on the subject, Moroney (1986) pointed out that sharing has always been part of community life, in all cultures and throughout all history. Families, neighbors, and other extrafamilial institutions have always helped care for people in need, and governments have always assisted with these efforts. History also shows that when either party fails to meet its share of the responsibility, the consequences for society are grim. Two key concepts underlying the principle of shared are mutual interdependence and reciprocity. Mutual interdependence acknowledges that all people are dependent; hence, all people need social support. Reciprocity implies that social support works best when both parties perceive the exchange as mutually beneficial: not in the sense that I'll do this for you now, if you do that for me, but I'll do this for you now, knowing that some time in the future you'll do something that benefits me or someone rise. Resentment and stigma surface when givers begin to view the exchange as one-way, or when recipients feel they cannot reciprocate any time in the future. HOW DOES THE CONTRACT MEASURE UP? From the perspective of shared responsibility, the Contract with America puts the onus of poverty on the individual, not society. It promises to renew the American dream by promoting individual liberty, economic opportunity, and personal responsibility (Republican National Committee, 1994, p. 5). Its most symbolic cornerstone is the Personal Responsibility Act, which seeks to reduce government dependency, attack illegitimacy, require welfare recipients to work, and cut welfare spending. The Contract does not mention unemployment, inequality, and other social factors that grip and grind people into poverty, or that women and people of color have had to bear the brunt of the burden (Reisch, 1994). Nor does the Contract mention that without substantial governmental intervention, the American economy cannot produce enough jobs or enough income for welfare recipients to escape poverty (Lehman & Danziner, 1994). The Contract chooses instead to ignore the structural causes of poverty in America. It absolves society of for the severe hardships our system of wealth has produced for many groups of people. The Contract also promises a new federalism, one that would shift greater control and for social programs to states and localities. But are these sectors able and willing to pay the cost? The answer is no - not under the balanced budget plan of the Contract. Federal aid provides more revenue to states and localities than any other single tax source: more than all revenue collected from property taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes. Under the balanced budget amendment, the cumulative loss in federal aid to state and local governments by fiscal year 2002 would total $390 billion (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1995b). To compensate for this loss, state and local officials would be forced to choose between large tax increases or deep spending cuts. …