Module/Week 6 Research Paper 3
Essay on Social Policy
Eze Osuagwu
PLCY 700 – Foundations of Statesmanship and Public Policy
September 29, 2019
2
Introduction
The underpinning elements of social policy implementation derives from government’s fiscal
stance. Social policy formulation draws from government policies in eradicating poverty
through the social security program, healthcare delivery and management, and education
assessment and implementation,1 to mention but a few. The dialogue between different
ideological fronts make a difference in the understanding of various policies affecting the
sectors. On the left the democrats confront issues from a liberal standpoint and on the right
the republicans take a conservative position to create the much-needed balance for a
democratic union.2 However, the social policy of the United States government is often
limited and driven by executive and legislative consensus, which does not come by easily.
Amongst the legislature there is always a debate on which side of the aisle will carry the day.
This often slows down the process of policy making and implementation, because social
policies spring from laws made by the legislature and in some cases executive orders signed
by the President for execution by government agencies (Brady and Bostic, 2015). This paper
will discuss the key areas and debates in the current social policy arena, evaluate the major
flaws in government social policy from the 1960’s onward and lastly evaluate the issues with
a Biblical model of government and statesmanship.
The current social policy arena in the United States is driven by debates on the
framework for public health care delivery, which is affordable, efficient and timely. However,
in the midst of the controversy the prevailing Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed by a
democratic led congress under the Obama Administration in 2010 has been stripped of its
strengths by Republicans under Donald Trump as President. The issue of health care has been
very controversial since the 1930’s when the social security act was enacted into law. Many
argue that health care should be universal as exemplified in some advanced economies like
Canada and United Kingdom, and some argue that it can only be affordable if everyone pays
a fair share for service delivery (Gingrich and Ansell 2012, Brady and Bostic 2015, and
Stoltzfus-Jost, 2017). No matter which side of the debate one finds himself the underlining
1 Brasfield, James M. “Medicare’s future: Policy ideas and the coming Reform debate.” Journal of Health and
Human Services Administration; Harrisburg 37(4) (Spring 2015) 462-517.
2 Stoltzfus Jost, Timothy. “The Morality of Health Care Reform: Liberal and Conservative Views and the Space
between them.” The Hastings Center Report; Hastings -on-Hudson. 47(6), (October 12, 2017). 9-13
3
fact remains that affordable health care should drive the economy of the United States in the
21st century.
In the same vein the social welfare policy suffers considerable constraints from the
vagaries of ideological stance. While liberals believe that every American should enjoy a
better life irrespective of social standing, the conservatives posit that an individual can only
enjoy a better life to the limit of his work and effort. This varying ideological configuration
has driven the concept of social welfare policy since inception. This paper is presented in five
sections, the second section reviews some of the policy debates and also discuss the
conditions for a comprehensive all-encompassing social security policy that would at the
same time retain the American values of hard work. In order to examine the flaws in the
social policy framework, we shall discuss the implications of a “policy drift” as espoused by
Hacker et al. (2013) in the third section; following developments in the last two decades on
how research has conceptualized the changes in the welfare policies of the United States. This
paper enlivens the discussion of social policy with a biblical model of government and
statesmanship in the fourth section, and the fifth section concludes.
Key areas and debates in the current social policy arena
The crux of the social welfare policy is to provide social protection for the population
considered to be poor.3 The definition of poverty is relative, and classification is based on
ideological leaning relating to both spatial and temporal dimensions. According to Cochran et
al. (2016), the liberal view is that the various characteristics of the economy are to blame for
poverty; the conservative view is that the poor themselves are to blame for their own
condition; and the radical view is that the fundamental nature of our capitalist system keeps
poverty thriving. Historical moments determine the extent to which more evidence exists for
one view or the other. Over time, collectively we have changed our view of who is deserving
of assistance or not, related at least in part to the state of the economy. A popular determinant
of recipients of assistance is the concept of “universalism,” which is broadly defined by
Brady and Bostic (2015) as homogeneity across the population in benefits, coverage, and
eligibility. However, Korpi and Palme (1998) argue that earnings related benefits have
3 Sykes, Jennifer; Katrin Kriz, Kathyrn Edin and Sarah Halpern-Meekin. “Dignity and Dreams: What the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) Means to Low -Income Families.” American Sociological Review 80(2) (April 2015).
243-267
4
greater homogeneity than do targeted benefits, because earnings-related programs distribute
something to nearly everyone. In a high employment situation, earnings-related benefits have
relatively broad coverage and relatively open eligibility. Nevertheless, all this leads to
transfer homogeneity. Similar to transfer share, universalism implies that all are equal
stakeholders and constituencies of beneficiaries, who have an interest and normative belief in
maintaining social policies (Pierson 2004). Because universalism implies greater
homogeneity in the probability of receiving transfers, welfare transfers should have more
broadly shared support (Beramendi and Rehm 2011; Gingrich and Ansell 2012). Larsen
(2008) argues that universalism suppresses public discussion of the neediness, deservingness,
otherness, and worthiness of beneficiaries, and many researchers argue that universalism
lessens the stigma of being a recipient (Katz 2001). Therefore, universalism should be
positively related to redistribution preferences.
Nevertheless, the United States social welfare policy challenges have been
counterintuitive and as Murray (2015) stated, it provides an “incentive to fail.” In the
minority communities the welfare policy almost failed to deliver the proposed incentives for
a better life and society. Liberals emphasize that the opportunities given to the poor must be
tangible like job training for salable skills, not temporary menial jobs or work with no future.
Unlike conservatives, liberals and progressives promote the idea that there are external forces
that inhibit the poor from making progress – because they lack opportunities for education
and employment due to discrimination. Cochran et al. (2016) opine that according to liberal
theory, racial discrimination against blacks, Hispanics and other minorities and sex
discrimination against women are important causes of poverty among these groups.
Conservatives however, argue that the economy provides plenty of opportunities for those
who wish to work or achieve their potentials, by taking advantage of the free enterprise
opportunities that the economy of the United States provides. In the same vein they propose
that the beneficiaries of the social insurance program and private philanthropy should serve
those unable to work due to age, physical handicap, or other disability. Conservative view is
that healthy adults unwilling to work due to laziness or lack of self-discipline, undermine the
growth of a positive society with good moral standing.4 Rather such lazy attitude to work
encourage a culture of poverty that brews indolence, instant gratification, teenage pregnancy,
4 Greve, Bent. “Introduction – Obamacare – Implications for Social Policy and Administration in the United
States.” Social Policy and Administration 50(4). (July 2016). 425-427.
5
drug and alcohol abuse and social vices, detrimental to social progress. the Religious right in
the same vein condemn the profligacy exercised in the abuse of the social welfare program
such as family break-up, unwed pregnancy as major causes of poverty.5
Conservatives argue that the future of the welfare program is doomed because of
abuse, the program cannot prevent poverty. They claim the social welfare program is marred
with cheating and fraud; for example, the “welfare queen” analogy espoused by President
Reagan in 1984.6 However, radicals on the left agree with the liberals that unemployment
amongst blacks and other minorities is rooted in discrimination, and that the fabric of the
American society is skewed in favor of the white population. They further argue that poverty
is inevitable in a capitalist society like the United States – adopting the classical Marxist
perspective of the poor working for the upper class (Brasfield, 2015).
At almost 50 years old Medicare has still not undergone significant change. The
program remains fundamentally very similar what began in July 1966. The Medicare policy
paradigm retains strong support from both the public and policy elites, but an alternative
paradigm has developed over the past two decades. These two competing views of Medicare
are strongly related to partisan preference. The public polls on the topic since 1995 have
consistently shown opposition to major change but identified a significant minority who
support the consumer choice perspective and endorse the premium support idea. (Kaiser
Public Opinion, 2012) Even a casual observer of Medicare policy may observe that additional
policy ideas have not been addressed here. Many argue that the age of Medicare eligibility,
65, ought to be increased to 67 or even 70 to reflect increased longevity over the last five
decades.7 From the very beginning the Medicare benefit structure has been inadequate. Most
beneficiaries need to purchase supplemental insurance to protect themselves against high
deductibles and co- insurance, as well as catastrophic costs. Long-term institutional care for
the chronically ill Medicare beneficiary is not covered. Each of these and other elements of
Medicare pose serious threat to the success of the social security program.
5 Midgley, James. “The New Christian Right, Social Policy and the Welfare State.” The Journal of Sociology &
Social Welfare. 17(2). (June 1990). 89-106
6 The story of Linda Taylor, a woman from Chicago who defrauded the social security administration in the
1970’s to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, using various identities, as told by President Reagan in
his 1984 campaign speech. Although, he never mentioned the “welfare queen” by name, the message was very
clear to his audience.
7 Brasfield, James M. … ibid (Spring 2015)
6
The central policy paradigm, program sustainability, and cost containment strategies
were selected here as the major policy ideas surrounding the health care program. There was
considerable increase in government expenditure with the introduction of a federal health
legislation in the 1960’s. the Medicaid and Medicare program were enacted into law in 1965
and since then have expanded to reach a growing number of Americans at the point of their
health needs. In 2010 a major reform in the health care delivery system came on stream by
the passage of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly referred to as
Obamacare. Despite the controversy surrounding the passage of this Bill through congress,
the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on the matters arising indicate that health care
policy of the United States is still bound with this piece of legislation. The underlining
discussion is rooted on the principle of universalism. Some argue that health care should be
universal and equally accessible by everyone irrespective of social standing.8 This position is
primarily taken by left wing ideologues, but on the other side of the discussion are right wing
conservatives who believe that the American constitution does not in any way recognize the
right to the public distribution of economic goods, be it food, clothing and health care. They
propose a healthcare for those who could not afford to be given by churches, and other
philanthropic organizations.9 They also argue strongly that a government mandate on health
care insurance provision is interference in the private business of the health care industry
stakeholders.10 In the wake of the controversy surrounding the passage of ACA in 2010,
congress rejected the single payer option, and after many overtures they finally arrived at a
combination of employer mandate and the individual mandate (Greve, 2016).
In the preceding decade managed care and use of market competition to reduce health
care spending growth had been the mantra for corporations newly worried about the impact
of employee health insurance costs. Republicans in Congress saw this as a viable idea to
change Medicare as the costs were reduced. A 1995 issue of Health Affairs featured Medicare
policy scholars of various political persuasions discussing how Medicare might be
8 Hacker, J., Thelen, K. and Pierson, P. Drift and Conversion: Hidden Faces of Institutional Change, Paper given
at American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting, Chicago United States. 2013.
9 Beland, D. and Waddan A. “The Obama presidency and health insurance reform: Assessing continuity and
change,” Social Policy & Society, 11(3), (2012), 319-330
10 Beland, Daniel, Phillip Rocco and Alex Waddan. “Reassessing Policy Drift: Social Policy Change in the United
States.” Social Policy & Administration. 50(2), (March 2016), 201-218.
7
transformed from a social insurance system to one that essentially provides a voucher to
Medicare recipients to use in purchasing a private insurance plan. It came to be called a
“premium support” approach because the idea envisioned a major subsidy by the federal
government to make the premium affordable (Medicare and Market Change, 1995). In 1995
the Republican proposal to make this change in Medicare failed to become law when
President Clinton chose to let the federal government shut down rather than sign the bill. In
this showdown the President ultimately prevailed, although the subsequent compromise
legislation created more private plan options for Medicare recipients under the expanded
Medicare + Choice option. A few years later the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of
Medicare came one vote short of recommending a premium support system near the end of
the Clinton Administration. (Oberlander, 2003)
On many health care issues, there is broad consensus across most of the ideological
spectrum. Everyone is against disease. When President Trump tried to cut funding for the
National Institutes of Health, he faced determined opposition from both parties. Both parties
believe we need the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control,
although they differ on funding levels and how regulatory the agencies should be. Virtually
everyone is in favor of value-based payments for health care services, though they may
disagree as to what this approach means. Everyone is opposed to fraud and abuse. A
surprising number of pieces of health legislation pass with overwhelming support in both
houses of Congress (Stoltzfus-Jost, 2017). There is no doubt that a major piece of social
policy legislation is health care and education and the most targeted beneficiaries are the poor
and the less privileged. As Murray (2015) would put it, everyone who work near the
minimum wage find welfare alternative attractive. It supports the labor force participation of
younger workers because their wages are more likely to be near minimum.
There is a strong, but guided conflict in the policy stance of the educational system of
the United States. Cochran et al. (2016) observe the conflicting thoughts of Liberals and
Conservatives in the policy formulation of the American educational system. While
conservatives attribute personal differences in educational achievement to individual
initiative and efforts, liberals contend that there is societal inequity that is skewed in favor of
the white majority that hinders the opportunity of minorities to attain their desired goals in
education. Albeit, these two traditional ideological opposition generates conflicting goals in
American educational policy. For instance, the controversy on financial equalization reflects
8
the conviction that expenditures affect quality of education. Although the relationship
between expenditures and educational achievement remains unclear. There is a general
assumption that deprived students achieve less with lower incomes and difficulty advancing
through the economic and social ladder. However, there is no empirical evidence to show that
expenditures do affect the educational attainment, but it is generally accepted that it improves
opportunities for broad intellectual development.11 Over the years, government efforts have
been shaped by civil rights and social activism towards attaining equality in access; the
affirmative action program of the 1960’s tend to stem the issue, but the constraints are still
rife especially amongst the minority ethnic groups. The rules might seem fair, but there are
underlining barriers that limit the potentials of the minority.12 The notion of these barriers
might seem far-fetched for the inner-city youth who is overshadowed by primordial
sentiments, which Murray (2015) considers to be insularity – isolation from mainstream
society, the expectation of failure leading to lack of self-confidence, and the official sanction
to reject personal responsibility for one’s action. Educational attainment and economic
progress for the young black kid will now require an extra push to see self beyond these
constraints.
The major flaws in government social policy from the 1960’s onward
To evaluate the flaws in government social policy since the 1960’s in line with policy
formulation and implementation, there is a need to discuss the problems and constraints
facing the various agencies responsible for the implementation of these policies. It is
noteworthy to mention that a bulk of what is considered to be flaws arise from policy
misalignment and ideological differences, which often result in delays in implementation and
oftentimes lead to non-implementation.13 For instance, congressional disagreements often
lead to sequestration – limited government funding or outright refusal to fund the
implementation of a policy. Major flaws in social policy spring from policy drift – according
to Beland, Rocco and Waddan (2016) if policy drift is to be a meaningful concept, there must
11 Gingrich, Jane and Ben Ansell. “Preferences in Context: Micro Preferences, Macro Preferences, Macro
Contexts, and the Demand for Social Policy.” Comparative Political Studies 45(12): (2012), 1624-54
12 Katz, Michael B. The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare states. New York: Henry Holt and
Company, 2001.
13 Beramendi, Pablo and Philipp Rehm. “Who Gives, Who Gains? Progressivity and Preferences.” Midwest
Political Science Association Meetings, March 31 to April 2011, Chicago IL.
9
be technically-feasible policy solutions available to remedy the consequences of changed
economic or social conditions. If the changes in the socio-economic context yield no
alternatives, then the norms of political life do not apply. By contrast, policies drift when
policymakers fail to use available options to deal with external changes, such as increasing
the minimum wage or subsidizing access to childcare for working parents.14 The availability
of options is relevant because it means that it is a matter of political contestation whether
these policy choices are made. Drift, therefore, is not simply a result of a dearth of policy
ideas, but the consequence of a drive to maintain the legislative status quo, even though it is
apparent that this does not mean the reality on the ground is that ‘things remain the same’
(Hacker et al. 2013).
As Rocco and Thurston (2014) argue, the utility of drift as a concept depends on
surmounting numerous challenges to empirical analysis. Three particularly important
challenges merit special attention. First, systematically identifying a set of processes as drift
is in itself challenging, in part because drift is, as Hacker (2004) acknowledges, a
‘subterranean’ reality largely hidden from view, which means that there is not always a
‘smoking gun’ that explains the motives of those opposed to revising policy to meet changing
circumstance. This invisibility is related to two main factors. On one hand, the typically slow-
moving changes in the economic and social context that help produce drift are not always
immediately apparent. On the other hand, the other source of drift – policy inaction on the
part of government to address such changes – is not a presence but an absence, making it
harder to observe and operationalize empirically. A related issue is that drift is not always
easy to measure or quantify, which poses a significant methodological challenge. For
instance, the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing recession triggered a major socio-economic
change which affected social policy in the fields of health insurance and retirement security
(Beland and Waddan, 2012). In fact, President Bush’s failed 2005 attempt to privatize Social
Security further points to the importance of drift as a concept because, in this case, the
absence of formal revision is not the whole story about pension change in the United States.
At the same time, revisiting the situation of United States health insurance in relationship to
the issue of policy drift is especially useful in tackling the potential relationship between
drift, revision, and implementation. This is the case because the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA), a complex and major health reform, will take nearly a long time
14 Larsen, Christian Albrekt. “The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes.” ComparativePolitical Studies 41(2):
2008. 145-68.
10
to unfold and will require the co-operation of numerous potential actors, including state
governors and legislative branches (Béland et al. 2014). As a result, the potential impact of
the ACA on policy is largely mediated by a long and politically fragmented implementation
process, a situation that should highlight the importance of implementation for the analysis of
drift. The resistance to the implementation of the ACA was manifested across a number of
aspects of the law. For example, in order to enable lower income households to purchase
affordable health insurance, the ACA established so-called ‘health insurance exchanges’
through which people would be able to choose from a variety of insurance packages and,
depending on their income, receive a subsidy from the federal government to pay for that
insurance.15 The law stipulated that state governments could establish their own exchange,
and that the federal government would act in cases where states did not co-operate. When the
law was passed it was anticipated that most states would take the opportunity to run their own
exchanges (Jacobs and Skocpol 2010), but by the end of 2014 only 24 states were doing so
(Kaiser Family Foundation 2015). The federal government did step in elsewhere, so people
who were eligible for subsidies were able to access them, but the uncooperative attitude of
many Republican controlled states was indicative of an ongoing resistance to the
implementation of the ACA (Béland et al. 2016).
The significance of that resistance, and the manner in which it worked to limit the
ACA’s aims of reversing the impact of policy drift, was seen in its most quantifiable form
with regard to the ACA’s proposed expansion of the Medicaid system. The ACA intended that
all states would be effectively required to expand their existing Medicaid programs to cover
everyone with an income up to 138 per cent of the FPL. In the summer of 2012, however, the
Supreme Court ruled that the ACA represented an over-reach of federal authority and allowed
states the option of not expanding their program (Waddan 2013).
Another concept of government policy misalignment and misspecification is in the
means-tested government programs, which many believe can stigmatize their beneficiaries,
and also carry social and psychological costs alongside their economic benefits (Edin and
Lein 1997; Rogers-Dillon 1995; Rosier and Corsaro 1993). Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), the core welfare program in the United States, has this effect (Stuber and
Kronebusch 2004; Stuber and Schlesinger 2006). However, the Earned Income Tax Credit
15 Rocco, P. and Thurston, C. “From metaphors to measures: Observable indicators of gradual institutional
change,” Journal of Public Policy, 34(1). 2014. 35-62.
11
(EITC) is one relatively generous, wide-reaching, means-tested government program that
instead creates a feeling of social inclusion, in part by fueling recipients’ hopes and plans for
future upward mobility. EITC is a refundable tax credit for lower-income workers, which
now lifts more children out of poverty than any government program (Greenstein 2005;
Greenstein and Shapiro 1998; Holt 2011). The way the EITC is targeted and distributed
imbues this money with a social meaning: namely, a just reward for work, and opportunity
for upward mobility, and a chance to provide recipients children with some of their “wants”
and not just their “needs.” Proponents argue that the EITC serves the purpose by reducing the
stigma since it is delivered to recipients through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and not
social welfare office, second the recipients are citizens, who earn a living through work. To
this end, EITC is not a stigmatized means-tested program, which creates social exclusion.
On the education front we observe a strong opposition on the universal application of
the common core. Opposition to the Common Core is derived from two diverse groups.
Conservatives are concerned about the uniform social and political values that may be
incorporated into the initiative’s lessons. Many of these values concerning family
relationships, the role of government, and social standards are in conflict with traditional
values of conservatives (Murray, 2015). Conservatives, liberals, and educational
professionals have challenged the Common Core for other reasons as well. First, the
emphasis on standards seems to require all teachers to use the same instructional approach
with all students, regardless of learning level. Creativity, diversity, and flexibility of
instructional technique (especially valued by educational professionals) seem to be
discouraged with the emphasis on universal standards. The standards also assume that all
students can and will master the same material within the same time period. This assumption
ignores differences in student ability (Cochran et al. 2016). A second reason for opposition is
that the emphasis on standards requires an ever-expanding testing mechanism that will be
used to measure both student learning and teacher effectiveness. On the other hand, matters
arising from affirmative action policy such as reverse discrimination amount to a major flaw
in education and employment inequity.16
Since the War on Poverty was declared in 1964 by the Johnson administration, official
poverty reports show little reduction in poverty, this measure has serious conceptual flaws
16 Katz, Michael B. The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare states. New York: Henry Holt and
Company, 2001.
12
that make it an inaccurate indicator of material hardship.17 While material hardship has fallen
dramatically, it did not happen because of the war on poverty. As a whole our poverty
programs have not focused enough on transitioning their recipients out of poverty via pro-
work incentives, but rather our policies are failing to strengthen self-sufficiency.18 In that
regard, the war on poverty has not been a success. A larger portion of non-disabled working-
age adults receive welfare benefits each year, and growth in work has been stunted for this
group, especially among men. This suggests we should renew our focus on self-sufficiency in
welfare programs via expanding work requirements. Are work requirements simply a means
to “punish the poor” as some suggest? It is universally accepted among economists that
welfare programs that provide material benefits to low-income households create a perverse
incentive to not work.19 The logic is that as you increase your earnings from work, you lose a
portion of your benefits. Of course, whether work requirements have net benefits depend on
how well they are designed. We note the importance of providing work supports when
necessary and exempting some non-disabled working-age recipients for various reasons. But
to claim that well-designed work requirements “punish the poor” is not supported by the
evidence.20 Ultimately, people living in poverty and taxpayers funding welfare programs
deserve a policy response rooted in truth and punditry.
Biblical model of government and statesmanship regarding social policy
The New Christian Right has taken positions on a variety of social policy issues including
family life, public morality, affirmative action, and education (Midgley 1990). Numerous
arguments have been formulated in support of its stance but generally, its approach is inspired
by an antipathy to modernism and ‘liberal’ tendencies in civil society. deeply conservative,
the movement has opposed progressivist social changes which contradict folkways that are
believed to be inspired by scriptural teachings. Drawing on these traditionalist beliefs, several
17 Brady, David and Amie Bostic. “Paradoxes of Social Policy: Welfare Transfers, Relative Poverty, and
Redistribution Preferences.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 80; No. 2 (April 2015) 268-298
18 Beland, Daniel, Phillip Rocco and Alex Waddan. “Reassessing Policy Drift: Social Policy Change in the United
States.” Social Policy & Administration. 50(2), (March 2016), 201-218.
19 Larsen, Christian Albrekt. “The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes.” Comparative Political Studies 41(2):
2008. 145-68.
20 Brady, David and Amie Bostic. “Paradoxes of Social Policy: Welfare Transfers, Relative Poverty, and
Redistribution Preferences.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 80; No. 2 (April 2015) 268-298
13
fundamentalist leaders have expressed their opposition to governmental welfare programs,
and some have characterized the welfare state as anti- scriptural. In this interpretation, state
welfare programs are regarded as anti-Christian because they are inconsistent with traditional
American individualist values which became institutionalized not because of an accident of
history, or because a particular sociology reality on the frontier, but because of divine
inspiration. Since, as Jorstad (1987) argued, it is God who is the “author of liberty” and
“whose thoughts are the ideology of freedom and democracy”, the American capitalist ethic
and its antistatism reflects God’s purpose. The welfare state is contrary to Christian belief
because it negates scriptural teachings that “support our American system of freedom, private
enterprise, individual initiative, personal responsibility, competition and what we call the
capitalist system” (Jorstad, 1987:26).
In a caring and just society government must have a role to play; that our values, our
love, and our charity must find expression not just in our government and in our politics. The
speeches of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan provide an instructive contrast regarding the
relationship between the Bible and public policy, especially since both presidents have been
closely associated with Christian groups.21 In the scriptures the golden thread that links
humanity to the divine is God’s immeasurable love for His children, manifested through His
care for their basic needs, such as food and shelter. In Numbers 35:11, God made special
provisions for those fleeing because of having committed unpremeditated crimes by
establishing a city of refuge. In this provision, God cared for their social issues, such as how
to treat the homeless, the strangers, or the poor in the community. True statesmanship
requires that a leader should walk in the path of the truth with absolute fear and respect for
God, knowing that divine Grace and wisdom comes from God (Fischer, 1998).
Conclusion
21 Midgley, James. “The New Christian Right, Social Policy and the Welfare State.” The Journal of Sociology &
Social Welfare. 17(2). (June 1990). 89-106
14
In this paper we have discussed the issues of concern with the American social welfare policy
drawing from the legislative debates and the implications on government policy in recent
years. Since the radical reform of the War on Poverty by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960’s we
have seen that the United States government has taken various steps to support the less
privileged and if possible provide a universal social welfare package that would address the
needs of the poor. However, despite all the expenditure in the social welfare program there is
no indication that it has actually lifted those targeted from poverty. Rather the results show
that the incidence of poverty is still on the rise. The social welfare program has only provided
an incentive for unwed pregnancies, breaking up families because of perceived social
protection even out of wedlock. In the same vein, health reform has not been universal. The
United States is still battling with trying to figure out an adequate and affordable health care
policy that is universal and at the same time protect the industry. The Affordable Care Act
(ACA) with all its comprehensive protection of preexisting conditions is still being
challenged by conservatives as a government overreach on the affairs of the citizens.
Nonetheless, the crux of the matter is that we can hardly find a common ground in the
adequacy of a social welfare program that will be all encompassing to address the needs of
the American society given the ideological divide that exists between the liberal left-wing
democrats and the right-wing conservative republicans. These differences account for the
reason why there are unusual government shutdown and sequestration to bar the funding of
certain programs that are not in the interest of the ruling government. Above all, this paper
informs us of the need to seek God’s provision as he commands us to take care of the
homeless, the poor in our society. Only through a compassionate reach to the needy that a
true statesman could be seen to administer a government in the fulfilment of Biblical
injunction.
References
Beland, D. and Waddan A. “The Obama presidency and health insurance reform: Assessing
continuity and change,” Social Policy & Society, 11(3), (2012), 319-330
Beland, Daniel, Phillip Rocco and Alex Waddan. “Reassessing Policy Drift: Social Policy
Change in the United States.” Social Policy & Administration. 50(2), (March 2016),
201-218.
15
Beramendi, Pablo and Philipp Rehm. “Who Gives, Who Gains? Progressivity and
Preferences.” Midwest Political Science Association Meetings, March 31 to April
2011, Chicago IL.
Brady, David and Amie Bostic. “Paradoxes of Social Policy: Welfare Transfers, Relative
Poverty, and Redistribution Preferences.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 80; No.
2 (April 2015) 268-298
Brasfield, James M. “Medicare’s future: Policy ideas and the coming Reform debate.”
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration; Harrisburg 37(4) (Spring
2015) 462-517.
Cochran, Clarke E., Lawrence C. Mayer, T. R. Carr, N. Joseph Cayer, Mark J. McKenzie, and
Laura R. Peck. American Public Policy: An Introduction. 11th Edition, Cengage
Learning, Boston MA, 2016.
Edin, Kathyrn, and Laura Lein. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and
the Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation 1997.
Fisher, Khalib. “Biblical Principles of History & Government,” Faculty Dissertations, 37.
Liberty University, Lynchburg VA. 1998.
Gingrich, Jane and Ben Ansell. “Preferences in Context: Micro Preferences, Macro
Preferences, Macro Contexts, and the Demand for Social Policy.” Comparative
Political Studies 45(12): (2012), 1624-54
Greenstein, Robert and Isaac Shapiro. New Findings on the Effects of the EITC. Washington
DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 1998.
Greenstein, Robert. The Earned Income Tax Credit: Boosting Employment, Aiding the
Working Poor. Washington, DC Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2005.
Greve, Bent. “Introduction – Obamacare – Implications for Social Policy and
Administration in the United States.” Social Policy and Administration 50(4). (July
2016). 425-427.
Hacker, J. “Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of
welfare state retrenchment in the United States,” American Political Science Review,
Vol. 98. (2004). 243-260.
Hacker, J., Thelen, K. and Pierson, P. Drift and Conversion: Hidden Faces of Institutional
Change, Paper given at American Political Science Association 2013 Annual
Meeting, Chicago United States. 2013.
Holt, Steve. Ten Years of the EITC Movement: Making Work Pay Then and Now.
Washington DC: The Brookings Institution. 2011.
Jacobs, L. and Skocpol, T. Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone
Needs to Know, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2010,
16
Jorstad, E. The New Christian Right, 1981-1988. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. 1987.
Kaiser Family Foundation. Status of state action on the Medicaid expansion
decision, http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-
expanding medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/ 2015. Retrieved 9/28/19.
Kaiser Public Opinion (2012) The Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, Data Note, October
2012.
Katz, Michael B. The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare States. New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
Korpi, Walter, and Joakim Palme. “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality:
Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries.”
American Sociological Review 63(5). (1998) 661-687.
Larsen, Christian Albrekt. “The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes.” Comparative
Political Studies 41(2): 2008. 145-68.
Medicare and Market Change (1995) Health Affairs, Winter 1995 Vol 14, no 4.
Midgley, James. “The New Christian Right, Social Policy and the Welfare State.” The
Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare. 17(2). (June 1990). 89-106
Murray, Charles. Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950 – 1980. Basic Books, New
York, 2015.
Oberlander, Jonathan. The Political Life of Medicare, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2003.
Pierson, Paul. Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ.
Princeton University Press, 2004.
Rocco, P. and Thurston, C. “From metaphors to measures: Observable indicators of gradual
institutional change,” Journal of Public Policy, 34(1). 2014. 35-62.
Rogers-Dillon, Robin. 1995. “The Dynamics of Welfare Stigma.” Qualitative Sociology
18(4) (1995). 439-56
Rosier, Katherine B. and William A. Corsaro. “Competent Parents Complex Lives: Managing
Parenthood in Poverty.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnographers 22(2): (1993). 171-
204.
Stoltzfus Jost, Timothy. “The Morality of Health Care Reform: Liberal and Conservative
Views and the Space between them.” The Hastings Center Report; Hastings -on-
Hudson. 47(6), (October 12, 2017). 9-13
Struber, Jennifer and Karl Kronebusch. “Stigma and Other Determinants of Participation in
TANF and Medicaid,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23(3), (2004).
509-530.
17
Struber, Jennifer and Mark Schlesinger. “Sources of Stigma for Means-Tested Government
Programs.” Social Science & Medicine 63(4), (2006), 933-45.
Sykes, Jennifer; Katrin Kriz, Kathyrn Edin and Sarah Halpern-Meekin. “Dignity and Dreams:
What the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Means to Low -Income Families.”
American Sociological Review 80(2) (April 2015). 243-267
Waddan, A. “Health care reform after the Supreme Court: Even more known unknowns,”
Health Economics, Policy and Law, 8(1) 2013. 139-143
