Liberty Expose: A Working Welfare (Part 2)
mart productions
Discussions over the American welfare system, not unlike the immigration debate, have served as a sort of modern moral litmus test: those who support welfare and social programs are cast as concerned, compassionate citizens, while those who oppose the introduction and expansion of such programs are depicted as indifferent or perhaps entirely apathetic. Yet this dichotomy fails to accurately address the current state of welfare affairs and an ongoing reality that is far less black-and-white than what is espoused by both proponents and detractors of the welfare system within America.
Welfare, in some form or another, has always been an element in the American experiment, albeit informally for much of the nation’s history. A government should have a legitimate concern in ensuring the stability of its citizens during periods of hardship or widespread economic disparity. To provide a temporary safety net for individuals to fall back on, steady their footing, and bounce back refreshed and well-equipped to continue the pursuit of their own American Dream. But what happens when welfare is substituted wholeheartedly for work? When temporary and necessary assistance transitions into persistent overreliance and dependence?
The aforementioned questions constitute the bulk of mainstream conservative criticism towards the American welfare system, in both structure and implementation. Despite media narratives and pundit talking points, conservative backlash against the U.S. welfare system isn’t conceptualized around a condemnation of compassion, nor an outright disregard of the downtrodden. Instead, it stems from the diagnosis that in its modern conception, the American welfare system has undermined the virtues of work, self-sufficiency, and responsibility it was originally created to preserve. The idea of a welfare system was never supposed to devolve into a welfare state.
The Foundations of American Welfare
For the beginning chapters of America’s history, welfare and social programs were largely the purview of private organizations and philanthropic associations, sparingly accompanied by local and state sponsored avenues of relief. It was not until the widespread, demographically inclusive hardships brought about by the Great Depression that the federal government took a hands-on approach to providing for the welfare of its citizens. Lacking the required resources to sustain nationwide relief on a private, local, and state level, welfare assistance received a necessary expansion under the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR’s New Deal program employed and uplifted millions of impoverished Americans, and with the signing of the Social Security Act of 1935 (SSA), concerns over public welfare were firmly enshrined into the federal domain.
The American welfare system, with the exception of the 1956 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) amendment to the SSA, remained largely unchanged until the implementation of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” programs in the 1960s. Rallying against the “War On Poverty”, not as a battle for short-term economic relief in the vein of FDR, but as a safeguard for the economic and moral fiber of America, Johnson outlined an ambitious vision geared towards equity, and racial and economic equality, that birthed many of the household welfare programs of the modern era. Medicaid, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) were all created during Johnson's crusade to alleviate poverty across America. The result? Poverty levels across America fell from 22.4% in 1954 to 11.1% in 1973. Afterwards, in 1972 President Richard M. Nixon signed the Social Security Income (SSI) program into law, federalizing disability assistance and expanding long-term income support for qualifying adults.
Almost no one disagrees that we need fundamental change in our welfare policy. — Rep. Gil Gutknecht
However, near the onset of the 21st century, growing concerns over the expansion, government cost and individual dependency on the welfare system began to fuel bipartisan skepticism towards federal and state sponsored assistance. This bipartisan distaste towards the welfare system, centered on criticisms against the Depression era program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), culminated in the 1996 welfare reforms of President Clinton’s Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). PRWORA harkened Clinton’s 1992 campaign promise of ending welfare, imposing stringent work requirements for welfare assistance, establishing a five-year end date for benefits, and replacing the widely-criticized AFDC with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) that is still in action today.
The State of Welfare
Nearly thirty years have passed since the reforms enacted under PRWORA. While the federal mandates surrounding this legislation have significantly decreased the number of recipients receiving direct cash-assistance, other means-tested welfare benefits, and government transfers continue to swell in scope and size. 42.4 million people received SNAP nutritional benefits in FY 2025, closing in on percentages not seen since 2013. Further government transfer programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, accounted for almost 18% of American’s total personal income in 2022. These government transfers comprise a large majority of the personal income of lower-income households, with personal income derived from work plummeting from 60% in 1979 to nearly 25% in 2021. The reach and impact of government transfer programs has cascaded across the country. Only 10% of U.S. counties depended on these transfers for a sizable portion of their personal income in 2000. That percentage surged to 53% of American counties in 2022. These counties are largely found in rural areas, many of which are the stomping grounds of the growing lower and working-class Republican voter base.
The cost of funding welfare assistance has totaled $34 trillion since the first skirmishes of Johnson’s “War On Poverty”, the accumulated cost overshadowing the combined fiscal toll of every war in American history. It seems that poverty is a far greater adversary than any foreign opponent the United States has faced in the past. Across a complex web of departments and agencies, means-tested welfare is the third most-expensive government function. Make no mistake about it. The state of welfare is alive and well in America.
The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. — FDR
Conservatives are staunchly opposed to what they believe to be unnecessary government spending, and with welfare programs comprising almost 20% of the federal budget, it is easy to understand why cuts and reductions towards welfare assistance are commonplace in the Republican budgetary playbook. But, as discussed in the previous entry of this series, the Republican Party has garnered no small portion of support from blue-collar workers and lower-income voters. So why target the programs that support and sustain the lives of these newfound voters? Is it opposition for opposition’s sake in a never-ending contest of zero-sum politics? Is the idea of federal spending towards welfare incompatible with the conservative political ideology?
No. The conservative apprehension towards the current welfare system doesn’t lie in what is given. It lies in what is taken away.
The American welfare system has dampened the spirit of American Individualism and diminished the concept of dignity through work. Arguably, it has contributed to the breakdown of the family unit, fostered a zeitgeist of dependency that traps families in cycles of poverty, and even diminishing civic participation.
Yet, 52% of Republicans have benefitted from some form of government assistance, and 34% view government aid in a positive light. There’s even a constitutional basis for the federal government promoting the general welfare of its citizens. So how can conservative politicians reconcile their well-found criticisms towards welfare with the stark fact that an increasing amount of Republican voters rely on said assistance?
How can conservatives reform welfare from a toll-free highway to the temporary exit-ramp it was meant to be?
