OpEd by Emily Zarate, Senior

A Broken Support System

By Emily Zarate

May 22, 2018

When a bridge lacks support, it is destined to fail. With no structure or base to support it, the bridge will ultimately collapse and no longer maintain its function. Why can’t the same be said of the citizens of this country?

Oh, SNAP!

After twenty years of no reform, it is time we take a look at our nation’s welfare system. As of 2016, more than 44.6 million Americans lived under the poverty line. As strikingly large as this number is, it would have been larger if programs such as Social Security, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and housing subsidies did not exist to lift an additional 48.3 million constituents out of their hardship. Such programs show the benefit of social aid, despite what the Trump administration may claim. As a midterm election nears at the end of this year, it is important to keep in mind that over 13 percent of our nation lives in impoverished conditions everyday.

Poverty rates among the elderly and the disabled are increasingly high due to their physical or mental limitations. Social Security is the most successful social program in American history, however, like all programs throughout American history, there are many—conservatives— who refute it. The lack of funding will significantly decrease the financial protection that many families rely on.

Donald Trump’s—our current president—proposed budget cuts to these federal social programs represent a serious threat to working-class and poor Americans who depend on those programs. Conservatives like Donald Trump, such as Paul Ryan, believe that government social services have only hurt the poor and that Republicans genuinely want to help them by diminishing of their dependence of welfare programs by getting rid of funding. Those in power, have a catastrophic effect on those who mostly depend on the government for assistance. Their role in the lives of others can be their downfall.

Many create an alternative to challenge Trump’s slogan, mentioning that before he can make “America great again” he must first make it humane. The reason for this being that people are forced to live a poor life with limited help. Increased poverty rates are not helped, only making the situation worse. The inhumane treatments caused by conservatives for their entertainment only weakens their support systems. They are given unfair chances to try to remake lives, giving them a “dead end” chance.

The Rich Gets Richer

Identifying the solution for ideal welfare reform, though, comes down to taking a look at the root of the problem. As renowned economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz asserts in his book The Price of Inequality, America currently has the most inequality and least equality of opportunity among developed countries.

Yet, the most disturbing part of the book is the fact that we are very unlikely to follow the advice that is contained in it.

The standard of living of the top 1% continuously rises, while that of the lower 99% continues to fall. Moving money from the bottom to the top lowers consumption because higher income individuals consume a smaller portion of their income than do lower income individuals The opportunities for upward mobility are fewer in the United States than in many other countries. The reason is that the upper 1% have designed the economic, political, tax, and education systems to benefit themselves, to the detriment of everyone else. They do not realize that in the long term, their well-being is inextricably coupled to the well-being of society as a whole.

Against Welfare Programs

On August 22, President Clinton signed into law "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity” Reconciliation Act of 1996, a comprehensive welfare plan that dramatically changed the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. This new system will exclude many of those disabled who are faced with extreme challenges in the workplace. The author mentions that there are many for and against this welfare program. Those against it want to make it tougher to get financial support—such as Arizona giving a one year limit

Although some disapprove of the decreased funding in social welfare programs, there are many who, on the other hand, approve and even encourage it. With various citizens behind them, and many more becoming impoverished, the need for these social reforms increases. As a result, the broken support system negatively affects those who are in most need of it.