Bill of Rights in Action

U.S. History: How Welfare Began in the United States

U.S. Government: Welfare to Work: The States Take Charge

U.S. History: "The Swedish Model": Welfare for Everyone
 
 

MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.

The 1920s in America seemed like an age of endless prosperity. Construction boomed, business flourished, and the stock market soared. Then on October 29, 1929, the stock market crashed. The crash sent shockwaves throughout the economy. Banks failed. Businesses closed. Millions found themselves out of work. The Great Depression, which would last through the 1930s, had begun. 

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.

The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.

Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:

The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.

Although President Franklin D. Roosevelt focused mainly on creating jobs for the masses of unemployed workers, he also backed the idea of federal aid for poor children and other dependent persons. By 1935, a national welfare system had been established for the first time in American history.

Welfare Before the Depression

A federal welfare system was a radical break from the past. Americans had always prided themselves on having a strong sense of individualism and self-reliance. Many believed that those who couldn't take care of themselves were to blame for their own misfortunes. During the 19th century, local and state governments as well as charities established institutions such as poorhouses and orphanages for destitute individuals and families. Conditions in these institutions were often deliberately harsh so that only the truly desperate would apply.

Local governments (usually counties) also provided relief in the form of food, fuel, and sometimes cash to poor residents. Those capable were required to work for the town or county, often at hard labor such as chopping wood and maintaining roads. But most on general relief were poor dependent persons not capable of working: widows, children, the elderly, and the disabled. 

Local officials decided who went to the poorhouse or orphanage and who would receive relief at home. Cash relief to the poor depended on local property taxes, which were limited. Also, not only did a general prejudice exist against the poor on relief, but local officials commonly discriminated against individuals applying for aid because of their race, nationality, or religion. Single mothers often found themselves in an impossible situation. If they applied for relief, they were frequently branded as morally unfit by the community. If they worked, they were criticized for neglecting their children.

In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt called a White House conference on how to best deal with the problem of poor single mothers and their children. The conference declared that preserving the family in the home was preferable to placing the poor in institutions, which were widely criticized as costly failures.

Starting with Illinois in 1911, the "mother's pension" movement sought to provide state aid for poor fatherless children who would remain in their own homes cared for by their mothers. In effect, poor single mothers would be excused from working outside the home. Welfare reformers argued that the state pensions would also prevent juvenile delinquency since mothers would be able to supervise their children full-time.

By 1933, mother's pension programs were operating in all but two states. They varied greatly from state to state and even from county to county within a state. In 1934, the average state grant per child was $11 a month. Administered in most cases by state juvenile courts, mother's pensions mainly benefitted families headed by white widows. These programs excluded large numbers of divorced, deserted, and minority mothers and their children.

Few private and government retirement pensions existed in the United States before the Great Depression. The prevailing view was that individuals should save for their old age or be supported by their children. About 30 states provided some welfare aid to poor elderly persons without any source of income. Local officials generally decided who deserved old-age assistance in their community.

A National Welfare System

The emphasis during the first two years of President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" was to provide work relief for the millions of unemployed Americans. Federal money flowed to the states to pay for public works projects, which employed the jobless. Some federal aid also directly assisted needy victims of the Depression. The states, however, remained mainly responsible for taking care of the so-called "unemployables" (widows, poor children, the elderly poor, and the disabled). But states and private charities, too, were unable to keep up the support of these people at a time when tax collections and personal giving were declining steeply.

In his State of the Union Address before Congress on January 4, 1935, President Roosevelt declared, "the time has come for action by the national government" to provide "security against the major hazards and vicissitudes [uncertainties] of life." He went on to propose the creation of federal unemployment and old-age insurance programs. He also called for guaranteed benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with other dependent persons.

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 fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . . . 

In addition to old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, the Social Security Act established a national welfare system. The federal government guaranteed one-third of the total amount spent by states for assistance to needy and dependent children under age 16 (but not their mothers). Additional federal welfare aid was provided to destitute old people, the needy blind, and crippled children. Although financed partly by federal tax money, the states could still set their own eligibility requirements and benefit levels. This part of the law was pushed by Southern states so they could control the coverage made available to their African-American population.

This is how welfare began as a federal government responsibility. Roosevelt and the members of Congress who wrote the welfare provisions into the Social Security Act thought that the need for federal aid to dependent children and poor old people would gradually wither away as employment improved and those over 65 began to collect Social Security pensions. But many Americans, such as farm laborers and domestic servants, were never included in the Social Security old-age retirement program. Also, since 1935, increasing divorce and father desertion rates have dramatically multiplied the number of poor single mothers with dependent children.

Since the Great Depression, the national welfare system expanded both in coverage and federal regulations. From its inception, the system drew critics. Some complained that the system did not do enough to get people to work. Others simply believed the federal government should not administer a welfare system. As the system grew, so did criticism of it, especially in the 1980s and '90s.

In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton, a Democrat, ran for president promising to "end welfare as we know it." In 1996, a Republican Congress passed and President Clinton signed a reform law that returned most control of welfare back to the states, thus ending 61 years of federal responsibility.

For Discussion and Writing

1. How did needy Americans get help before 1900?

2. Why did most states adopt "mother's pension" programs after 1910? In what ways were these pensions sometimes administered unfairly?

3. Did President Franklin D. Roosevelt view the Social Security Act's welfare provisions helping needy children and other dependent persons as permanent or temporary? Explain FDR's reasoning on this matter.

For Further Reading

Burg, David F. The Great Depression, An Eyewitness History. New York: Facts on File, 1996.

Handler, Joel F. The Moral Construction of Poverty. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1991.
 
 
 

ACTIVITY: Who Should Be Responsible for Welfare?

The debate still continues over who should be responsible for the welfare of destitute old people, disabled persons, and poor single mothers and their children.

1. Divide into small groups to discuss the four different positions on the responsibility for welfare that are listed below.

2. Each group should decide which position is the best and report its conclusions and reasons to the rest of the class.

3. The class should then vote on the four choices.

4. Finally, each student should write an editorial explaining why his or her choice is the most preferable.

Positions

A. Welfare should be a national government responsibility so that needy single mothers of dependent children, elderly, and disabled persons in every part of the country can get support when they meet certain qualifications.

B. Welfare should be a state government responsibility so that each of the 50 states will be free to design its own qualifications and levels of support.

C. Welfare should be the responsibility of charities, churches, and other non-profit groups.

D. There should be no welfare. Individuals should take care of themselves with the help of their families, friends, and neighbors.

The federal welfare system began in the 1930s during the Depression and grew steadily. When the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program began in 1936, it provided cash aid to about 500,000 children and parents. By 1969, the number had grown to nearly 7 million. 

Over the years, Congress added new programs. President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" provided major non-cash benefits to AFDC recipients as well as to other needy persons. In 1964, Congress approved a food stamp program for all low-income households. The next year, Congress created Medicaid, a federal and state funded health-care system for the destitute elderly, disabled persons, and AFDC families. In 1974, during the Nixon presidency, Congress established the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to provide aid to the needy elderly, blind, and disabled. This program made up the last major component of the federal welfare system. 

By 1994, more of the nation's needy families, elderly, and disabled received federal welfare than ever before. Aid to Families with Dependent Children alone supported more than 14 million children and their parents. But as the welfare system grew, so did criticism of it.

The Welfare Trap?

Aid to Families with Dependent Children had drawn the greatest criticism of the four major federal welfare programs. By the 1990s, AFDC supported 15 percent of all U.S. children. In most cases, these children lived at home and were cared for by a single parent, usually the mother, who otherwise did not work. This situation brought on complaints that welfare let able-bodied adults avoid work and become dependent on government handouts. 

Criticism of the AFDC program was further fueled by cases of children who grew up in families where no one ever had a paying job and who themselves became dependent on welfare as adults. Moreover, the AFDC program generated a vast bureaucracy, overlapping services, and endless regulations. All this placed an increasing burden on the nation's taxpayers (although AFDC made up less than 1 percent of the federal budget).

Some of those criticizing AFDC were recipients themselves, 70 percent of whom collected a welfare check for less than two years. For many of these people, going on welfare was a humiliating experience of struggling through a maze of bureaucratic rules in order to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their children.

Others, however, saw welfare more positively. Although the program was not perfect, AFDC provided a relatively inexpensive safety net, which prevented people from falling into extreme poverty. Many of the people helped by welfare only needed it for a limited time. Those who needed it longer were usually those with few skills or with learning disorders or other disabilities.

Welfare to Work

When Democrat Bill Clinton campaigned for president in 1992, he promised to "end welfare as we know it." Clinton wanted to help people make the transition from welfare to work. He proposed that anyone receiving welfare should go to work within two years. 

Although many Republicans favored this idea, critics in Clinton's own party saw two obstacles preventing welfare recipients from going to work. First, many on welfare could not find jobs because they didn't have skills or work experience. Second, those who could find work usually ended up in jobs that did not pay enough to support a family.

As president, Clinton worked to overcome these obstacles. He got Congress to enlarge the earned income tax credit. This allows low-wage earners who support a family to receive each year a sum of money from the Internal Revenue Service. Clinton also proposed that the government provide jobs for welfare recipients who couldn't find work. But Congress, with a new Republican majority, rejected this proposal.

Clinton and Congress continued working to find a compromise on welfare. In August 1996, after 18 months of debate, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. This welfare reform law ended 61 years of AFDC guaranteed cash assistance to every eligible poor family with children. The new law turned over to the states the authority to design their own welfare programs and to move recipients to work. 

Under the new law, AFDC was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, funded by federal block grants and state money. States are given wide discretion in determining eligibility and the conditions under which families may receive public aid. But Congress tied a number of strict work requirements to the federal block grants:

• Adults receiving family cash-aid benefits must go to work within two years. States may exempt a parent with a child under 1 for no more than 12 months.

 
• States had to have 25 percent of their welfare caseloads at work in 1997 and 50 percent of their caseloads at work by 2002. States who fail to meet these requirements will lose 5 percent of their federal block grants.

 
• Each adult is limited to no more than five years of cash assistance during his or her lifetime. But states may exempt up to 20 percent of their caseloads from this limit.

Some voiced strong objections to such a massive change in the welfare system. Two members of the Clinton administration resigned in protest. They faulted Clinton for signing a bill that made no attempt to assure that every person on welfare would have a job. A study by the Urban Institute said that the new law would cause 10 percent of all American families to lose income and predicted that the new law would send more than 1 million children into poverty. Senator Edward Kennedy called the law "legislative child abuse." Many Democrats in Congress warned that the nation's social safety net, in place since the Great Depression, was in danger of falling apart. Others argued that the welfare reform act aimed more at punishing poor people than helping them out of poverty. A report by Catholic Charities, U.S.A., said that charities could not make up for estimated $15 billion per year in welfare cuts under this law. That amount is more than the total charities currently receive in gifts in one year. Clinton himself, although thinking the law a major step in the right direction, viewed it as flawed. He promised to work to remove the flaws.

Others strongly support the new law. They think it will give those on welfare an incentive to get back to work and it gives states the means to experiment with different approaches to help people achieve this goal. 

The States Take Charge

The persistent theme throughout the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act is putting welfare recipients into jobs. But this task is not as easy as it may seem.

Moving hundreds of thousands of people from welfare to work requires hundreds of thousands of jobs to be open. When jobs aren't available, local and state governments may have to create community-service jobs like cleaning public parks. Many welfare recipients are poorly educated, have few job skills, and lack the experience and discipline of going to work on a schedule. Thus, they may need extra help and training in getting and holding on to a job. Moreover, going to work costs money. Child care has to paid for, clothing purchased, and transportation arranged.

Of all the states, Wisconsin is probably the most advanced in moving welfare recipients to work. Before Congress acted in 1996, the state had already begun major welfare reforms on its own. Wisconsin's Republican governor, Tommy Thompson, together with Democrats in the state legislature, vowed to abolish welfare by 1999. 

Wisconsin's welfare reform effort, called "Wisconsin Works," has the nation's strictest work requirements for adults receiving public aid. By the end of 1997, all adult welfare recipients had to be involved in some work-related activity. Even so-called "unemployables," like the mentally ill and drug addicts, had to report to therapy or rehabilitation sessions to try to make themselves job-ready. Only mothers with newborns under 3 months old were temporarily exempted from going to work. New welfare applicants had to first look for a job before collecting any cash aid. As a result of these requirements, Wisconsin succeeded in cutting 60 percent its welfare caseload by the end of 1997.

The success so far of "Wisconsin Works" relies not only on requiring welfare recipients to go to work, but also providing them with support as they make the transition from dependency to independence. Wisconsin pays for both child care and medical services for all low-income working families. The state also provides job training, helps pay the wages of certain workers in "trial jobs," and places those who cannot get hired into community-service work.

Because of all the support services, moving people from welfare to work in Wisconsin is expensive. The state's welfare budget is currently running 40 percent higher than it did under the old AFDC program despite the steep drop in the welfare caseload. Typically, a mother with two children who now works at a minimum wage job and also receives food stamps, child care, health insurance, and tax credits from the government earns the equivalent of about $16,500. Under AFDC she would have earned $9,500. The current U.S. poverty level income for a family of three is $13,330.

Like Wisconsin, the other states are creating their own pathways to try to get more people on welfare into jobs. Some, like Connecticut, allow a person to keep receiving a welfare check while also collecting a paycheck until the work income rises above the national poverty level. Other states impose severe penalties. For example, Mississippi is experimenting with cutting off all cash and food stamp benefits to families who do not comply with the new work requirements.

Key Issues Remain

A year after Congress passed the welfare reform act, the nation's welfare caseload had fallen almost 25 percent. But a number of key issues remained. One issue was resolved when President Clinton and Congress reached a federal budget agreement that restored SSI and Medicaid benefits to legal immigrants who had been in the country before the new welfare reform act became law. Here are some other welfare reform issues that are still being debated:

Should there be lifetime limits of five years or less on the welfare benefits families may receive?

Some people argue against lifetime limits. They say some parents and their children may need more than five years of benefits because of unforeseen events beyond their control (like a divorce, serious illness, or an economic recession). Others argue for lifetime limits. They say limits will prevent people from staying on welfare too long or going on and off throughout their lives.

Should able-bodied adults who don't have minor children and who are not working at least 20 hours a week be limited to no more than three months of food stamps in any three-year period?

No, say those who argue that this limitation mainly affects persons with no income other than food stamps who often take longer to find work because they have few employable skills or have minor physical or mental disabilities. Yes, say those who argue that this requirement is needed to motivate able-bodied adults to get a job.

Should it be harder for children with certain disabilities to qualify for SSI benefits?

An estimated 315,000 children, mainly with learning disabilities and behavior problems such as attention deficit disorder, will probably lose their SSI benefits because they will not meet the new eligibility standard. To get SSI benefits, children must now have "marked and severe functional limitations." This stricter standard resulted from claims that many of these children were not seriously impaired and that some parents were coaching their children to fake disabilities in order to collect from SSI.

Should welfare recipients who are assigned to community-service work be compensated at a rate at least equal to the minimum wage?

Unions and others say community-service workers deserve to be paid according to the same rules that apply to workers in private employment. The Clinton administration has ruled that the minimum wage rate for community-service workers is required by U.S. labor law. Many states, however, argue that hard-to-employ persons placed in community-service jobs are being adequately compensated by learning job skills while also collecting welfare benefits. They say that requiring the minimum wage for such jobs would significantly increase the cost of welfare reform in the states.

For Writing and Discussion

1. Do you think needy single mothers with preschool children should be required to get a job? Why or why not?

2. Why does it appear to be costing more to move welfare recipients into jobs than to maintain the old AFDC system that did not require work?

3. Do you think that the nationwide welfare reform effort is generally too harsh on poor people, too lenient, or just about right? Give reasons for your answer.

For Further Reading

DeParle, Jason. "Getting Opal Caples to Work." New York Times Magazine. Aug. 24, 1997:33+. [This concerns welfare reform in Wisconsin.]

Katz, Jeffrey. "After 60 Years, Most Control Is Passing to States." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. Aug. 3, 1996:2190-2196.
 
 
 

ACTIVITY: Welfare Reform Issues

1. Divide the class into four groups. Each group will be responsible for discussing one of the welfare reform issue questions listed at the end of the article.

2. Each student in a group should prepare to take a position on the group's issue question. But students might change their minds as the discussion takes place.

3. Each group will, in turn, discuss its welfare reform issue question while the rest of the class observes. One student in the group should introduce the question by explaining what it is about. This student should also have a number of questions prepared to help the discussion proceed. All members of the group should contribute to the discussion at least once.

4. During a discussion, one chair will be designated the "hot seat," which any student outside the group may take to contribute his or her ideas. This student must give up the "hot seat" when another student from outside the group wishes to participate.

5. The purpose of these discussions is to try to reach consensus on welfare reform issues. If consensus is not reached on a question, the class should vote on it after the discussion has concluded.

The Swedish welfare state (also called the "Swedish Model") is based on the idea that everyone has a right to health care, family services, old-age pensions and other social benefits regardless of income. Since everyone is entitled to these benefits, everyone must pay for them through their taxes.

Sweden began to build its welfare state early in the 20th century and greatly expanded it between 1945 and 1975. Up to the 1970s, the "Swedish Model" succeeded for several reasons. First, the Swedish economy grew steadily during this period. Second, Sweden did not participate in World War II and so, unlike other European nations, it did not have to make a painful recovery from the war. Third, its defense budget was small. Fourth, the country did not have to deal with any immigration problems. Sweden had a small population with a common cultural background. Swedes were proud that their little democratic society had seemingly found a "middle way" between socialism and capitalism.

Building the Welfare State

The welfare state has been the vision of the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SDP), which was founded in 1889. Formed by industrial workers, this political party rejected violent revolution (as in Russia) in favor of democratic social reform. The SDP aimed at building a system that would provide workers (and later all Swedes) with health insurance, old-age pensions, protection from unemployment, and other social benefits financed by taxes on workers and employers. The SDP called its vision for a welfare state the "people's home."

The SDP gained control of the government in the 1930s and remained in power for most of the following 60 years. In 1937, the Swedish parliament, called the Riksdag, created a national old-age pension program that remains as the backbone of the welfare state to this day.

The SDP did not want government to take over the ownership of businesses. Instead, SDP leaders realized that government could work with private enterprise, which would produce the economic growth necessary to make the "people's home" possible. Even today, after six decades of welfare-state development, 90 percent of the businesses in Sweden remain in the hands of private owners. Starting in 1938, the Swedish government began to engage in negotiating national wage agreements between employers and labor unions, which currently represent over 80 percent of the workers.

Following World War II, the SDP government greatly expanded the welfare state. It provided a long list of benefits for all citizens and even immigrant workers. It introduced a national compulsory health insurance system, which was later expanded to include dental care and prescription drugs. It passed into law low-cost housing, child-support payments to parents, child-care subsidies, a mandatory four-week vacation for all workers, unemployment insurance, and additional old-age pension benefits. Most of these things were financed by sharp increases in employer social security taxes. But a booming economy with unemployment usually less than 1 percent made the new social welfare programs possible.

By the mid-1970s, the SDP's had largely realized its vision of a "people's home" welfare state. All Swedes, regardless of need, could call upon the government to provide them with the benefits listed below. Most are available at no charge to the individual or family. Some "subsidized" benefits require persons to pay a partial fee, usually according to one's income.

Health and Sickness

1. subsidized doctor care mainly in county clinics

2. free public hospital treatment

3. subsidized dental care; free for children

4. subsidized prescription drugs; life-saving drugs free

5. free abortions and sterilizations

6. free maternity clinics for prenatal care

7. cash benefits to compensate for loss of most wages due to sickness; a separate benefit is available for workers injured on the job 

Family Support

8. tax-free monthly payment to parents for each child; single parents receive an additional payment for each child

9. parents have a right to take a total of 12 months paid leave from work at near full wages to care for each child up to first year in school

10. subsidized child care at home or in a government day-care center

11. one year at a subsidized nursery school

12. unemployment insurance pays about 80 percent of previous income

Pensions

13. most retired persons receive three different kinds of old-age pensions paid for by taxes and employer contributions

14. full or partial disability pensions; disabled child pension goes to parents until age 16 and then directly to child

15. special payment to handicapped persons who are working or in school

16. surviving spouse and orphan pensions

A few additional kinds of aid are provided only to those who have low incomes. The most important of these are housing subsidies for poor families and elderly pensioners.

Because of the extensive number of benefits available to all age and income groups, poverty was virtually abolished in Sweden by the 1970s. But there are those who still need extra help during hard economic times or a family crisis. An example of the latter is the increasing number of single mothers who depend on temporary government cash aid. This "social assistance" (what we call "welfare") usually involves small amounts of aid provided for less than a year.

Benefits and Burdens

The Swedish welfare state has all but eliminated poverty, especially among the elderly and families with children. The typical married retired couple receives pension and supplemental payments that almost equal their pre-retirement income. This is much more than what a Social Security pension provides in the United States. The infant mortality rate in Sweden is five deaths for every 1,000 live births contrasted to seven deaths in the United States. Also, both male and female Swedes live longer than Americans. 

While there is little doubt that the Swedish people have benefited from the "Swedish Model," they also have one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world. Today, an average Swedish working family pays about half its earned income in national and local taxes. Swedes also pay taxes on investment income. In addition, Sweden has a national 25 percent sales tax that is built into the price of consumer goods. Beyond this, employers must pay corporate taxes and make payments into government pension, unemployment, and other social welfare funds. The resulting tax burden is so heavy that Swedes have a special word for it, skattetrat, which means "tax tiredness." 

Government spending currently equals about 60 percent of Sweden's gross domestic product (the value of all goods and services purchased in a year). U.S. government spending by contrast accounts for about 20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. The Swedish government's fastest growing spending areas are health services and old-age pensions. Furthermore, public employment has rocketed to account for about one-third of all jobs in Sweden. (In the United States, the government supplies less than 5 percent of all jobs.)

Starting in the mid-1970s, the Swedish economy began to slow down. Among other things, Swedish exports had become too expensive due to the high wages and payments made by employers into the different government welfare-state programs. As economic growth slowed, Sweden found it increasingly difficult to pay for its system of social-welfare benefits.

Can the Welfare State Continue?

As inflation, unemployment, and the government budget deficit grew, many working people started to complain about the burden of paying for the expensive pension system. Others objected to the lack of choice in a society where the government runs almost all social services.

In 1991, a conservative government took control of the government and tried to rein in the welfare state. It cut some benefits as well as taxes. But these actions came during a world-wide recession, and unemployment in Sweden soared to an unprecedented 13 percent. 

Fearing that the conservative government was going too far in cutting back the welfare state, Swedish voters returned the Social Democratic Party to power in 1994. Surprisingly, the SDP, the party that created the welfare state, announced a program of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the government deficit. Late in 1997, however, with both the deficit and unemployment down, the SDP government reversed course and declared it was time to restore and even expand some social welfare benefits. But many doubt whether the "Swedish Model" of a welfare state that benefits everyone can continue at the level that most Swedes have come to expect. 

Some Americans look to Sweden as a model for U.S. welfare programs. Others say that the "Swedish Model" would not work in the United States because the two countries are so different.

For Discussion and Writing

1. How is Sweden different from the United States? Do you think these differences would prevent the "Swedish Model" of welfare from working in the United States? Explain.

2. Sweden's welfare state has been described as a "middle way" between socialism and capitalism. What does this mean?

3. What similarities and differences are there between government social benefits in Sweden and the United States?

4. Why do Swedes say that they suffer from "tax tiredness"?

For Further Reading

Sander, Gorden F. "Sweden After the Fall." The Wilson Quarterly. Mar. 1, 1996:46+.

Wilson, Dorothy. The Welfare State in Sweden. London: Heinemann, 1979.
 
 
 

ACTIVITY: Welfare for Everyone?

Regardless of income, most Americans are entitled to Social Security old-age and survivor pensions, Medicare (at age 65), disability benefits, unemployment insurance, and worker's compensation. In Sweden, everyone has a right to a much longer list of social welfare benefits. Which, if any, of these benefits should be made available to everyone in the United States?

1. Form three groups. Each group will review Swedish social welfare benefits in one of these areas: Health and Sickness, Family Support, or Pensions. The specific benefits included in these three areas are listed in the article. (For larger classes, two groups may be assigned for each area.)

2. Each group is responsible for deciding which social benefits (if any) should be provided by the federal or state governments in the United States. 

3. After deciding which benefits should be available in the United States, group members should then decide how to finance them: federal income tax, state income tax, employee payroll tax, employer payroll tax, sales tax, some other tax, or a combination of taxes. Benefits may also be "subsidized," requiring a partial fee to be paid by the beneficiary. Those groups that have chosen not to adopt any of the Swedish benefits should prepare reasons why they have decided this way.

4. Each group next reports what Swedish benefits the U. S. federal or state governments should provide and how these benefits should be financed. Groups that selected none of the benefits should give reasons why they decided to do this. After each group's report, other members of the class may ask questions or present their own views.

5. Following the group reports, the class should discuss and/or write a response to this question: Is welfare for everyone a good or bad idea? Why?
 

Officers: Haley J. Fromholz, President; Susan J. Troy, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Gerald Chaleff, Lee S. Edmon, Michael W. Monk, Margaret Morrow, Peggy Saferstein, Deborah S. Saxe, Marvin Sears, Lois Thompson, Carlton Varner; Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Peggy Saferstein, CRF Board Reviewer.

© 1998, Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005,  (213) 487-5590