Copyright 2006 by Tad Beckman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
According to the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." People are created equal and possess unalienable rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, it is the obligation of governments to secure these rights and governments that fail in this can be abolished. All good Lockean political philosophy! In addition, the Constitution begins, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Note, in particular, the object of promoting the general welfare. The question, then, is whether the democracy established as the United States of America must seek to establish equity among its citizens to equally secure their happiness and welfare. Do we really mean common in promoting the ideal of "commonwealth"?
The Lockean argument for commonwealth creation makes it clear that life in a "state of nature" offers no promise of welfare. It is, indeed, a survival of the fittest in which the world is dotted with castles and strongholds specifically designed to protect what resources a group of people has labored to obtain. When people agree to live under laws in a commonwealth, they delegate their own protection and that of their property to appropriate institutions of government. But why would they do this if the government merely legitimises a new system of survival of the fittest in which a small number of powerful people can capture all of the wealth and prevent the majority from enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness? Yet that would seem to be the result of our free market economy. While numerous laws and government services are in place to protect that economic system, doesn't government have some obligation to correct the imbalance it promotes in the "general welfare"? Isn't this issue especially important to the idea of maintaining democracy? That is, if people live in poverty, they are not only unhappy but they are also probably unable to function as informed citizens. It can be argued that a democratic government must engage in programs of social welfare.
Ironically, the United States, supposedly the premier democracy of the modern age, has a very poor record in social welfare. Perhaps the only unquestionable program of social welfare is universal public education through high school, and even this program, as we well know, has numerous problems centering around inequality of educational opportunities. The Social Security program, which is relatively young in the scheme of things, is constantly criticized by the conservative side of the political spectrum and its funds have been raided for support of other government programs. Meanwhile, while Medicare functions as an off-shoot of Social Security, it is merely a partial aid in covering illness and aging. There is no national program of universal health care in this country, and both conservatives and the medical profession itself lobby forcefully against such programs every time they are brought up. Yet the combination of medical services under stress and private insurance companies has created a disasterous escalation of costs that no one can afford. The so-called Medicare Reform Act of 2005 is a typical act of conservative politics; it forces senior citizens to afford new health insurance from private companies, protects the interests of pharmaceutical companies, and offers only a small amount of Federal support, paid to the insurance industry.
Laws preventing child labor and regulating working hours and working conditions are clearly elements of social welfare. Equally, laws establishing a minimum wage reach toward welfare; as we know, however, such legislation is very difficult to come by. Since the Great Depression, the government has taken an active role in regulating the economy and an important measure of its success, or failure, is the unemployment index. Doubtless, systems of unemployment compensation qualify as a step in the direction of effective social welfare; however, the measurement of unemployment is extremely (almost maliciously) faulty. The index is based on an estimated "work force" and people who do not become re-employed in some period of time are simply dropped from the "work force" roles as though they no longer want to be employed. Finally, over the last decade, the trend toward "globalization" has largely allowed American corporations to completely side-step issues of social welfare by exporting their production to countries that have no such programs. What is truly amazing is the degree to which government goes out of its way to actually help American businesses achieve these ends.
Meanwhile, according to the US Census Bureau, the official poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7%, up from 12.5% in 2003. That means that 37 million Americans were in a state of poverty, 13 million of them under the age of 18. [Poverty is measured differently for people in different situations. Depending upon numbers and situations of family members, a "poverty threshold" is calculated. Then, the family is in poverty if their total income falls below the threshold. In 2004, thresholds were in the region between $9,600 for an individual and $19,000 for a family with two children under 18. If you are curious what you can do with all that money, study the Consumer Expenditure Survey. For the estimated 37.6 million "consumer units" who are renters (averaging 2.2 persons per unit with 0.6 children), total average expenses for just food, housing, utilities, clothing, and transportation was $22,911 annually. Just small increases in the costs of heating or gasoline can push these people into poverty.] Poverty reflects racial issues in the country; 24.7% were Blacks, 21.9% were Hispanic, and 9.8% were Asian, while only 8.6% were non-Hispanic Whites. Not only do Americans resist aiding their own citizens but American aid to other countries, as a percentage of our GNP, falls below any other economically developed nation. Basically, Americans just don't like to spend money except directly on themselves. Even support of their own government is controversial. The Republican Party makes a point of never increasing taxes; and the newly elected Bush administration even drained the surplus created in the prior eight years, paying it back to taxpayers, only to run up the largest deficit in the history of the nation. Deficits --- we have both budgetary and trade deficits --- are a kind of inverse social welfare! Citizens just entering the economy will bear the burden of these deficits long into the future. Meanwhile, the deficit is used as an excuse for reducing existing social welfare programs.
In the reading, Walzer deals with some important issues in improving the delivery of social welfare. Can the delivery be socialized so that those receiving it take a bigger role in getting appropriate aid where it belongs? Moon discusses the moral basis of social welfare. What are the moral principles that Americans need to hold in mind when welfare is discussed? And Elster considers the problematic idea that citizens might own a right to work.
Meanwhile, Krouse and McPherson consider the concept of a welfare state in the context of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Gutmann (the editor of this volume) discusses public education as a social welfare program and takes up issues centering around how best to spend the limited amounts of money available for education. Thompson takes up the broad issues in theories of representation and, especially, the accountability of representatives to their constituents. He believes that promoting social welfare programs creates special strains and stresses for these theories.
Finally, Hochschild takes up the issue of race in a welfare society; and Carens looks at the very timely issue of welfare and immigration.
Updated on April 25, 2006; click here to return to My HomePage or here to return to Course Index Page.