Social Programs vs. Poor

Welfare programs mainly started in the 1930’s. Between 1932 and 1935, Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt passed many legislations which aimed to relieve states and their individuals of stress during times of economic recession. Many of these policies included writing checks to help the state ventures and individuals within states. Over the next few decades, more policies following the philosophy of the originals emerged, and became more involved with the individual. While these programs were intended to benefit all, the racist environment led to lots of discrimination.

Many of the past social programs required people to be working or earning certain reported income to be eligible for welfare programs. While this was not a problem for many, it became one for many blacks and hispanics. They were less likely to receive jobs because of their race, and were often paid “off the books” or in cash, which prevented them from access to these programs. Furthemore, some programs had residency requirements, and due to other policies that barred black people from moving into different neighborhoods, black families were not eligible for a lot of programs.

Many whites prospered under the programs, which did a good job of helping the impoverished feed themselves and find work. Because of a simple misunderstanding of black families and culture, and the notion that anyone who works hard can be able to alleviate themselves from poverty, black families got little help. While whites prospered and found pathways out of the poverty cycles, blacks and hisapnics dug deeper holes as they received no help. While this will eventually change, racism and discrimination in welfare will prevail.

Data from Pew Research Center showing the black poverty rate in comparison to that of whites.

Data from the North Carolina Public School Executive Summary demonstrating the low academic performance of schools with a large poverty percentage.

The current government welfare-type programs in American serve about one in every 5 citizens, and even more considering programs such as social security. While the combination of over 100 of these programs is said to have lifted over 48 million people out of poverty, the reality is that they relieve the poor of short-term struggles and don’t address the long term issues that keep generations in poverty. And because politicians are able to get through their election cycles boasting statistics on how they provide for the poor, the real state of millions of poor Americans is unknown to the general public.

While discrimination has certainly decreased in social programs in comparison to those of the 1900s, many issues regarding the logistics of these programs still persists. For example, the social programs do not place any emphasis on job training or education. Many people are not required to be working or enrolled in a current job training program to receive benefits, meaning there is no intention of making welfare recipients self-sufficient in the future. Providing instead of helping the poor provide for themselves is a large reason the poverty cycle continues today.

Additionally, the simple structure of the relationship between income and welfare benefits is so poor that it seems better to remain in a lower income bracket. The current progression of taxes and programs are almost meant to keep the poor from making more or working up the ladder in job status, as it is beneficial for them to stay in lower income brackets. We observed this during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which 33 million workers were impacted. Many workers became discouraged due to the large unemployment benefits that had no contingencies such as attending job training sessions attached. Without focusing on long-term benefits instead of short term statistics for a political advantage, the poverty problem in America will not be solved.

Data from the American Academy of Pediatrics displaying that the poverty rate for children under 18 has remained overall steady, and not decreased despite the growth of welfare programs.