Welfare Entitlements: Addressing the New Realities

Abstract

Over the past several decades, various interest groups, depending on their ideological views, have attempted to use the Internal Revenue Code to accomplish different social and economic objectives. Liberal reformers have opted for wealth redistribution to lower income groups, whereas more conservative reformers have tended to oppose these redistributive measures. As the Clinton administration grapples with the task of governing the nation, one of the most difficult dilemmas confronting the administration is the reform of the Internal Revenue Code so that it addresses the stagnating economy while maintaining some social welfare functions. This article proposes that social workers should advocate for changes in the Internal Revenue Code that promise to reduce poverty, the most fundamental social problem in the United States. The elimination of poverty has been a long-standing goal of the social work profession. The reduction of the incidence of poverty decreases the risk of other serious problems afflicting poor people including homelessness, child maltreatment, mental and physical illness, and IQ deficits among young children (Jencks & Mayer, 1990). After the publication of Titmuss's (1969) classic analysis of tax expenditures for the middle class, social workers have tended to focus on the Internal Revenue Code when attempting to justify welfare entitle-merits for poor people (Abramovitz, 1983). The new political realities reviewed in this article strongly suggest that social work should promote changes in the Internal Revenue Code that will reduce poverty through job growth and incentives that make work more rewarding for welfare recipients and low-income Americans. Welfare Entitlement Dilemma The political unpopularity of welfare entitlements is growing in spite of the decline in current spending per poor person. Although it is difficult to fully estimate spending for poor people because social security and Medicare assist poor people, current spending per poor person remains 20 percent below the 1978 level. When viewed in the context of the gross national product, the proportion of antipoverty spending declined in the 1980s from 3.9 percent to 3.5 percent (Levitan, 1990). Moreover, although the federal deficit was primarily caused by a significant increase in defense expenditures (Bowles, Gordon, & Weisskopf, 1990) and a significant reduction in taxes for high-income taxpayers, a large proportion of the general public perceives welfare entitlement programs as accounting for the bloated federal deficit and tax increases for the middle class. Opposition to welfare entitlement programs is not limited to the general public. Theorists of the so-called new paternalism and behavioral poverty have argued, with considerable forcefulness, that although welfare entitlements raise millions of Americans out of poverty, they do so at considerable financial and social costs to society (Mead, 1989, 1992). The availability of welfare entitlements, according to these critics, creates massive dependency and withdrawal from the labor force. Although it is true that dependency is a reality for some welfare recipients, empirical studies to date have provided little insight into the extent of dependency that is caused by Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and similar programs. However, public opinion is not guided by factual evidence. In the public's view, welfare entitlement programs are both a waste of taxpayer monies and harmful to the recipients who receive welfare assistance. Entitlement programs are further burdened by the public perception that the majority of the nation's poor people live in inner cities where they take advantage of entitlement programs. This perception is made more negative by both the rising crime rate and the fiscal deterioration of inner cities. Some scholars support this point, noting that inner cities should be abandoned and people should be encouraged to migrate to the suburbs, where jobs are more plentiful (Kasarda, 1988). …