Free Example of Texas and Louisiana Essay

Texas and Louisiana border each other which state has the most extensive welfare system? According to the Texas Monthly (1977), Americans still associate poverty with moral failure. The magazine continues to say that in Texas 55 percent of poor families are headed by a person who works and works full time. The magazine says that by that time there were no welfare Cadillac’s in Texas; were a mother and child on welfare used to received only $80 a month. Texas Monthly (1977) says that 32 million Americans receive social security checks from the countries largest single interest group. Statistics show that about three quarters of all Texas welfare expenditures go directly into pockets of doctor’s, hospitals, nursing homes, grocery stores and landlords. Texas Monthly (1977) continues to say that “Texas has gained a national reputation for its tightly run welfare” (p. 5). The magazine further says that about 325,000 Texans which is about 75 percent of hem children on the AFDC rolls are less than 3 percent of the state's population. Their benefits are an average of $32,06 a month hence it ranks fourth from the bottom in the whole country.

Texas Monthly (1977) says that no welfare program will ever be as good its best intentions. That means that there is no guarantee that poor families will not get the Social security funds. Texas pays no support to poor children whose father lives at home. The current biggest problem in Texas is that the bureaucracy of the welfare department is saddled with a bureaucratic nightmare (Texas Monthly, 1977). According to Capps et al (2001) Texas was one of the first states to reform its welfare system. Capps et al (2001) says that in 1995 the Texas legislature passed landmark legislation in advance of the federal personal responsibility and work opportunity.

Capps et al. (2001) say that “Texas has a philosophy of minimal government, reflected in a state constitutional provision limiting welfare expenditures to 1 percent of the state's budget”. Texas has the lowest share of its state general fund devoted to Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1996: 0.8% (Capps et al, 2001). Capps et al. (2001) say that in 1998 Texas raked 50^th in total state government spending per capita ($2,584). In their article, Capps et al. (2001) say that Texas is the most populous state with n personal income tax. Capps et al. (2001) also indicated that “Texas has the highest share of children lacking health insurance which was 23 percent in 1999”.

Texas has no state general relief program and therefore as a result in 2000 its TANF benefit level was the fifth-lowest in the United States above Louisiana (Capps et al, 2001). Capps et al. (2001) continue to say that receiving welfare to all poor children at out of the thirteen states Texas ranked lower than any other in terms of the ratio of children which was a rough measure of welfare coverage. Child care eligibility rules differ across the state but because of 13 of the 28 regions including many metropolitan areas. As a result, Capps et al. (2001) indicated that “Texans are subject to eligibility set at 150 percent of FPL or 53 percent of the state median income”.

Capps et al (2001) say that welfare reform which guided by HB 1863 has greatly reduced the welfare rolls. According to their article “there were 204, 168 TANF cases statewide but by May 2000 the total had fallen 44 percent to 115,213” (Capps et al, 2001 p. 4). In their research Capps et al (2001) the number of households receiving food stamps fell 31 percent from 751,094 to 514,786 in Texas but only 19 percent in the United States during fiscal year 1997-1999. Capps et al (2001) also said that “children may continue receiving benefits p to five year federal limit even if their parents may no longer receive support” (p. 5). Capps et al (2001) also said that the family is eligible for transitional Medicaid and child care. Integration of TNF, FSP and Medicaid eligibility in the state's database automatically recalculates income levels versus eligibility thresholds.  The following table shows welfare benefits that is the maximum monthly benefit in the year 1996, 1998 and 2000.   

Duignan & Rabushka (1980) indicated that for a welfare system to succeed it should firstly reaffirm the needy only philosophical approach to welfare and state. Duignan & Rabushka (1980) say that a welfare system can succeed only if I is basically in line with what most people believe is right.  They also indicated that in the short run it might be possible to pass legislation that would in one way guarantee income for all or at the  other extreme simply eliminate all government welfare programs over a period of time and also on the other hand allow  private charitable efforts to take care of people in need (Duignan & Rabushka, 1980). There must also be a clear statement of national welfare policy as a guide for those who formulate the specific welfare s laws and regulations governing the welfare system.

The absence of clear well defined principles and criteria for judging the welfare systems these can leave advocates, pressure groups, governments officials and politicians relatively free to support or  oppose specific changes, guided only by their own personal philosophical views on what the states welfare system should be (Duignan & Rabushka, 1980). The second important consideration will be to eliminate fraud. Duignan & Rabushka (1980) says that “one single thing about our current welfare system that most infuriates the typical American is t flagrant fraud perpetrated by a sizable percentage of welfare recipients” (p. 172).  They continue to say that the extent of fraud and dishonesty has been clearly and irrefutably documented numerous times in the recent years. Some of these welfare irregularities are due to administrative error on the part of the welfare bureaucracy (Duignan & Rabushka, 1980).

The major consideration is that no the issue of giving checks to people who can still earn their living is  the single issue which has contributed more t the low status of welfare recipients than the public confidence that high number of people who do not deserve welfare receive it Duignan & Rabushka (1980). This is because according to their studies Duignan & Rabushka (1980) indicated that there are no practical ways of identifying welfare cheats hence a certain portion of the hostility is generated by those who abuse the welfare systems. This means that a small percentage of reduction of fraud in the welfare systems would result to large cost savings and would greatly help to return confidence in ad respect for t he system.

At state level Duignan & Rabushka (1980) indicated that the states should establish and enforce a fair clear work requirement This therefore implies that a welfare system based on the needy only approach requires some means of ensuring that only those who truly cannot help themselves receive welfare aid. There is no feasible way that the very high effective marginal tax rates imposed on the poor by the current welfare system could substantially be reduced (Duignan & Rabushka, 1980). This therefore according to Duignan & Rabushka (1980) also implies that “any significant reduction in welfare tax rats significant enough to create an effective financial work incentive” (p. 173).

It is important to examine the variables which play significant role in establishment of welfare systems. Duignan & Rabushka (1980) says that we should reexamine our commitment to using financial incentives to encourage people to remove themselves voluntarily from the welfare rolls and find work in order to earn living. The most important thing that the public should be educated about is that if a person is capable of self support both for themselves and for their families they should therefore not expect to receive any money from other members of the society who work and pay taxes (Duignan & Rabushka, 1980). The basic principle involved in this context is independence and dependence.

Duignan & Rabushka (1980) says that if a person is capable of taking care of himself he is independent and should not qualify for an amount of welfare. On the other hand if a person is not capable of taking care of himself he or she is dependent hence they qualify for welfare. The only challenge with this principle is its implementation (Duignan & Rabushka, 1980). States should encourage people to take a more active role in charitable endeavor by allowing them a tax credit for charitable contributions.

On the other hand Capps et al (2001) says that “as welfare programs have sifted towards requiring every recipient to or engage in activities leading to work, child care is now a cornerstone of state efforts to support these activities” (p. 12). They also  noted that people leaving TANF because they have found employment are usually referred to as transitional often also need child care to make their transition more successful (Capps et al., 2001).

A national study which was focused on young welfare mothers found out that both the level of child support payments and the strength of state child support enforcement led to significantly higher welfare exits and at the same time caused lower re-entries in the pre-TANF era (King & Schroeder, 2003). King  & Schroeder (2003) indicated that effects that were substantially greater than those of other unearned income.

Researchers who may want to investigate welfare systems can use quantitative analysis of linked and also use some analysis of combined quantitative and qualitative data. King & Schroeder (2003) say that qualitative analysis of interviews for those who receive welfare and those who leave the welfare or diver tees can be used to do analysis of the effectiveness of the welfare programs. The range of data can be taken from a period or a time frame of several months. It not a must to do an analysis of an entire welfare population but instead this can be addressed in the most significant groups for example children and the aged (King & Schroeder, 2003). The research could for example seeks to determine which range of old aged people receive support or the number of child support who leave the welfare support in a period of a certain number of months (Capps et al., 2001). These figures can be analyzed in terms of a percentage.

Regression analysis of the survey or the research can be used to come up with the average amount which each child each child receives and also this can be quantified or associated statistically with a significant percentage (King & Schroeder, 2003). King &Schroeder (2003) therefore indicated that “the available research after the survey could offer ambiguous results on the role of welfare earnings and child support in promoting exits from welfare and poverty and also reducing welfare recidivism” (p. 4).       

The variables which can be used according to King &Schroeder (2003) is the non-custodial parents (NCPs) associated with their child support cases and parent earnings. King &Schroeder (2003) continues to say that employment and earnings data can be drawn from un-employment insurance wage records collected by a particular state. King &Schroeder (2003) continue to say that supplemental employment and earnings data from other states can be considered. The following table shows some of the variables which can be used.

King &Schroeder (2003) determined that the workforce development participation data can be derived from individual-level choices, county-level unemployment rates, employment growth rates and measures of population density in both urban and sub-urban or rural. King &Schroeder (2003) says that “this data could also be gathered from the US Census Bureau for determining poverty rates based on the number of adults and children in the family and from the Bureau of Labor Statistics” (p. 6). The following table was obtained from and shows the variables which can be used to carry out the above survey.

From the above statistics King &Schroeder (2003) says that due to a large number of regresses available in the longitudinal database, stepwise logistic regression procedures can be used to predict a change of status. Bateman (2006) says that nowadays welfare rights activity in the USA appears to fall into several categories which reflect the fragmented nature of the US social security and welfare systems and of course there is no equivalent of the UK’s free National Health Service with help towards medical costs coming from the Medicare and Medicaid Schemes. Bateman (2006) says that the US benefits system includes comparatively generous social insurance benefits for old age, disability and survivors.

Many groups experience difficulty accessing benefits in the USA. Bateman (2006) says that social security advocates have broadened the scope of welfare benefits through their input to many of the 996,000 appeals against a negative decision. Bateman (2006) also says that “the current welfare rights services in the USA include the following: a network of poverty and welfare law centers funded costly by charitable organizations which provide advocacy and help primarily around access and sufficiency of TANF and food stamps and also access to Medicare and Medicaid” (p. 11). Social workers in hospitals advocate and help people access Medicaid to meet their medical bills. Bateman (2006) also says that “grassroots welfare rights groups organize and campaign against deficiencies in welfare provision as well as providing access to help with social welfare law problems” (p. 11).

According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999), Governments should modernize the relationship between their benefit systems and labor markets. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999) thus says “the welfare systems should be moved from the payment of passive income support towards more active measures involving new and tougher work tests especially for the unemployed linked with voluntary mandatory attendance at a diverse range of job search, employment and training programs” (p. 127).

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999) says that the shared also says that this welfare to work strategies should aim at creating new active benefit regimes which improve employability, reinforce work incentives and reduce costs and welfare dependency. The US government should recognize the need to couple policy with organizational reform and link these transitions to active welfare schemes with radical changes in the bureaucracies (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1999). States should in addition note that the reasons for the perceived inadequacies of existing welfare systems are attributed to the top-down inflexible nature of policy formation and implementation. It is also attributed to the fragmented structure and role of the traditional welfare bureaucracies and national employment services and also to the absence of competition and market forces.