U.S. Social Policies Essay, Research Paper
Destined to Fail
Chapter 12 of Charles Murray & # 8217 ; s book Fring Land: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 is entitled Incentives to Fail I: Maximizing Short-run Gains. I believe that this rubric is really fitting and aims straight at the centre of an issue of American policy, which has been characterized by many, both Democrats and Republicans as a failure. The societal policy that was discussed is the American Families with Dependent Children ( AFDC ) , which was designed to battle poorness in America by giving persons money for nutrient and medical specialty.
In Murray & # 8217 ; s chapter he introduces two conjectural Americans who were non married but had merely given birth to a kid. Murray intentionally did non give the twosome any separating racial characteristics ( to extinguish bias ) instead he gave the twosome generic features, such as they had merely had a high school instruction, come from hapless households, etc. Murray, uses this conjectural twosome in two scenarios one based in the 60 & # 8217 ; s and the other in the 70 & # 8217 ; s. His scenarios where aimed to demo the reader how the system had failed. This failure was highlighted when the reader realized ( much to my surprise ) that in all possible scenarios the plans such as the AFDC seamed to hale twosomes into staying unwed because the benefits of staying an unwed live in twosome outweighed ( financially ) the benefits of matrimony. This is due to the fact that under both legislative Acts of the Apostless and tribunal determinations a adult female would free her AFDC benefits if she was married because her hubby & # 8217 ; s income would be considered in to the equation of finding how much support she would have under the AFDC.
What American societal policy was ensuing in was unwed twosomes who took advantage of the sys
tem. Couple would “shack up” and have babes. The more kids they had the more money they would have from the AFDC. I believe that this is a shame. What state would advance such policy? It was destine to neglect. I understand that these policies were needed to battle the poorness that was apparent in American in the 1960’s. However, a policy which gave a adult female money ( money that was barley plenty to populate ) and state them that they could merely have this money if there was no “men life in the house” was pathetic. What we needed at the clip was societal plans that helped non merely unwed female parents but besides the full household unit.
If a authorities is to hold such societal plans ( something that I am opposed to ) they need to turn to the issue wholly. Don & # 8217 ; t give an single money for life, give them an inducement to acquire a occupation, give them developing to go a conducive member of society. There is an old expression & # 8220 ; give a adult male fish and he will hold one repast were he desire travel hungry, but teach a adult male how to angle and he will ne’er travel hungry & # 8221 ; . This is what the U.S. needed to make and what Bill Clinton attempted to make. We need to get rid of the public assistance system, as we know it. The new system needs to be one with a maximal period, were an person can merely have benefits for a little period of clip ( 24-36 month periods ) . The benefits should be a combination of difficult dollars and occupation preparation. This would be cost effectual, for non merely would you be assisting the hapless, but you would let them to go lending members of society ( all while take downing the unemployment rates ) .
It is sad to recognize how much of a failure the public assistance system was. But that is precisely what we as citizens need to make. We need to recognize the failure and take stairss in making a system that is destined to win.
