在美國，優惠性差別待遇（Affirmative action）/(Affirmative Act)，又稱為積極平權措施，是指美國聯邦政府和州政府在法律要求的平等機會。這些措施是為了防止在「膚色、宗教、性別或民族出身」上對僱員或就業申請人的歧視[1][2]。例如美國勞工部提供的扶持行動包括宣傳活動，有針對性的招聘，員工和管理的發展，以及員工的支持計劃。[2]
美國政府自1960年代推動扶持行動[3][4][5][6][7]，以糾正歷史上與之相關的有明顯歧視的缺點[8]。法案進一步推動是要確保公共機構，如大學、醫院和軍隊的扶持行動，更是扶持他們所服務的人群得到平等對待。扶持行動是一個有爭議的問題。扶持行動採取了一些政策，如種族配額或大學入學的性別配額，被批評為「逆向歧視」（Reverse Discrimination）的一種形式。[9]
起源
美國最高法院於19世紀中葉就開始了依據憲法中的保障原則來保護黑人公民權利的行為。雖然憲法已保障少數族裔及性別的權利，但不少在職業及教育上仍然受到歧視，公民權利並沒有獲得保障。
興起
美國平權運動是1960年代伴隨非裔美國人民權運動、女權運動、性革命等一連串民權運動興起的一項社會運動，並於民權法案通過後進一步擴大。
1965年由民主黨政府的美國總統林登·詹森發起，主張在大學招生、政府招標等情況下照顧如少數民族、女性等弱勢群體，是一個特定時期「種族優先」的法律，保障他們不會在教育及工作方面受到歧視及不公平對待。
支持平權行動論點
甘迺迪總統在第10925號行政命令中指出：「由於種族，信仰，膚色或民族血統而受到歧視，這違反了美國的憲法原則和政策」； 「美國政府的明確和積極的義務是，促進和確保所有合格人員享有平等的機會，而不論其種族，信仰，膚色或國籍，在聯邦政府工作或根據政府合同受僱或尋求工作「; 「政府行政部門的政策是通過積極措施鼓勵政府內所有合格人員平等機會」；並且「通過最有效地利用所有可用人力來促進其經濟，安全和國防，符合美國的普遍利益和福利」。[10]
由於優惠性差別待遇的推行，美國教育領域的形勢有從一個極端到另一個極端的現象時有發生。比如，有的教育和研究項目，走到了不是少數族裔就不能申請進入的境地。對少數族裔的優惠，在某些方面似乎過了頭。以著名的密芝根大學為例，新生的入學總體評分，必要的畢業考試SAT成績，滿分佔18點，而少數族裔種族優惠分就佔20點。也就是說，如果一個非常用功的非少數族裔青年，在SAT考試中得到滿分，1600分（大概在0.5％左右），在其它條件相同的情況下，那麼他／她將在總分上低於一個沒有SAT成績的少數族裔青年。當然這是理論上的邏輯說法，實際不會發生這樣離奇的事件。但是，過中的問題已經清楚地表現出來了。
密芝根大學兩個白人學生在2005年為此訴諸法律，狀告學校當局，歧視白人學生。幾經周折，這個案子最後上訴到了聯邦最高法院。由於明顯的不合理，近來不少重要大學先後取消或者是修改了若干「歧視」少數族裔學生的項目。其中包括麻省理工，普林斯頓大學，愛荷華，北卡州等等。[11]
不少白人及保守派認為，這種平權運動矯枉過正，形成了一種對白人和男性學生的「逆向歧視」。也就是在高等教育入學時任何一個孩子都可能在考試分數高於一個黑人孩子時遭到拒絕，而考分相對較低的非裔美國人孩子可能被錄取。加州大學首先將廢除優惠性差別待遇提上議案，並在1995年正式停止實施在招生中優惠少數族裔和婦女。
目前亞裔是教育平權思想最大的受害者。例如普林斯頓大學的錄取中，亞裔的錄取者的SAT成績需要比白人、西裔、非裔的成績分別高出50、235、280分[12]。哈佛大學的錄取中，亞裔需要比白人、西裔、非裔分別高出140、270、450分。[13]。
在加州大學系統嘗試提出教育優惠性差別待遇SCA5的2014年，加州大學錄取的新生除去國際學生和種族不明之外，29%是白人，41%是亞裔，25%西班牙裔，5%非洲裔[14]。而根據1996年的人口出生數據[15]，當年達到入學年齡的學生中34%是白人，11%是亞裔，47%西班牙裔，7%非洲裔。因此如果加州大學引入種族配額，亞裔將承擔所有成本，而白人將和其他族裔一起從中受益。
在美國，工資最高的公司中[16]，排名前五的谷歌、Salesforce、臉書、微軟、NetApp中，亞裔/白人/西裔/非裔的員工比例分別是32/59/3/2%（Google[17]）、24/65/4/2%(Salesforce[18])、36/55/4/2%(臉書[19])、31/58/6/4%(微軟[20])、24/66/5/3(NetApp[21])。而根據[22]推算，美國的勞動力中這四個族裔比例分別為6/64/17/12%。因此就業平權如果在這些公司推廣，則亞裔仍然首當其衝，而白人將不受影響或略微獲益。
同樣根據[22]，亞裔/白人/西裔/非裔的中位周薪分別是$993/835/604/641，全國中位值為$809。因此即使在全國範圍內推廣就業收入的平權，亞裔依然將受到最嚴重的衝擊。
參考資料
- [Executive Order 11246]--Equal employment opportunity. The Federal Register. [2010-05-05].
- Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). U.S. Department of Labor. [2010-05-05]. （原始內容存檔於2009-11-28）.
- Herring, Cedric, African Americans and Disadvantage in the U.S. Labor Market (PDF), University of Michigan: 1, 1995
- Chubb, C; Melis, S.; Potter, L.; Storry, R. The Global Gender Pay Gap (pdf). International Trade Union Confederation. 2008 [2010-05-00]. 引文使用過時參數
coauthors(幫助) - Butto, James; Moore, Kelli N; RIENZO, BARBARA A. [ttp://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/37134799/Supporting-Diversity-Works-African-American-Male-and-Female-Employment-in-Six-Florida-Cities Supporting Diversity Works: African American Male and Female Employment in Six Florida Cities] (pdf). Western Journal of Black Studies. 2006 [2010-05-05]. 引文使用過時參數
coauthors(幫助) - Obama, Barack. Presidential Proclamation -- National Equal Pay Day. Office of the Press Secretary. 2010-04-20 [2010-05-05]. （原始內容存檔於2010年4月26日）.
- Median Weekly Earnings, by sex and race. U.S. Department of Labor. 2008 [2010-05-05]. （原始內容存檔於2010-05-27）.
- Anderson, Elizabeth S.; Rawls, John; Thurnau, Arthur F. Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action. University of Michigan. July 2008 [2010-05-05]. 引文使用過時參數
coauthors(幫助) - Douthat, Ross. Affirmative Action. The New York Times (New York Times). 2009-06-15 [2010-05-05].
- Executive Order 10925: Establishing the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. thecre.com. Center for Regulatory Effectiveness. March 6, 1961.
- 法律教育網 從優惠性差別待遇看美國民主的進程 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2013-06-29.
參見
擴展閱讀
[[Category:
Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States, of which half was for medical care and roughly 40% for cash, food and housing assistance. Some of these programs include funding for public schools, job training, SSI benefits and medicaid.[1] 截至2011年 (2011-Missing required parameter 1=month!)[update], the public social spending-to-GDP ratio in Social spending after the crisis. OECD. (Social spending in a historical perspective, p. 5). Retrieved: 26 December 2012.</ref> Roughly half of this welfare assistance, or $462 billion went to families with children, most of which are led by single parents.引用錯誤：沒有找到與<ref>對應的</ref>標籤[2]
In addition to government expenditures, private welfare spending, i.e. social insurance programs provided to workers by employers,[3] in the United States is estimated to be about 10% of the U.S. GDP or another $1.6 trillion, according to 2013 OECD estimates.[4] In 2001, Jacob Hacker estimated that public and private social welfare expenditures constituted 21% and 13–14% of the United States' GDP respectively. In these estimates of private social welfare expenditures, Hacker included mandatory private provisions (less than 1% of GDP), subsidized and/or regulated private provisions (9–10% of GDP), and purely private provisions (3–4% of GDP).[5]
The first large-scale social policy program in the United States was assistance to Civil War veterans and their families.[6] The program provided pensions and disability assistance.[6] From 1990 to the early 1920s, the U.S. provided what Theda Skocpol characterized as "maternalist policies", as it provided pensions for widowed mothers.[6]
 | 模板參量錯誤！（代碼34）
|
Colonial legislatures and later State governments adopted legislation patterned after the English "poor" laws.[7] Aid to veterans, often free grants of land, and pensions for widows and handicapped veterans, have been offered in all U.S. wars. Following World War I, provisions were made for a full-scale system of hospital and medical care benefits for veterans. By 1929, workers' compensation laws were in effect in all but four states.[8] These state laws made industry and businesses responsible for the costs of compensating workers or their survivors when the worker was injured or killed in connection with his or her job. Retirement programs for mainly State and local government paid teachers, police officers, and fire fighters—date back to the 19th century. All these social programs were far from universal and varied considerably from one state to another.
Prior to the Great Depression the United States had social programs that mostly centered around individual efforts, family efforts, church charities, business workers compensation, life insurance and sick leave programs along with some state tax supported social programs. The misery and poverty of the great depression threatened to overwhelm all these programs. The severe Depression of the 1930s made Federal action necessary,[9] as neither the states and the local communities, businesses and industries, nor private charities had the financial resources to cope with the growing need among the American people.[10] Beginning in 1932, the Federal Government first made loans, then grants, to states to pay for direct relief and work relief. After that, special Federal emergency relief like the Civilian Conservation Corps and other public works programs were started.[11] In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration proposed to Congress federal social relief programs and a federally sponsored retirement program. Congress followed by the passage of the 37 page Social Security Act, signed into law August 14, 1935 and "effective" by 1939—just as World War II began. This program was expanded several times over the years.
Economic historians led by Price Fishback have examined the impact of New Deal spending on improving health conditions inl有 114 largest cities, 1929–1937. They estimated that every addition$153,000 in relief spending (in 1935 dollars, or $2.3 million in 2020 dollars) was associated with a reduction of one infant death, one suicide, and 2.4 deaths from infectious disease.[12][13]
Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare assistance was "once considered an open-ended right," but welfare reform converted it "into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs."[16] Prior to reform, states were given "limitless"[16] money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.[17] This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare benefits (the state lost federal money when someone left the system).[18] Nationwide, one child in seven received AFDC funds,[17] which mostly went to single mothers.[14]
In 1996, under the Bill Clinton administration, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which gave more control of the welfare system to the states, with basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. Some states still offer basic assistance, such as health care, food assistance, child care assistance, unemployment, a few offering cash aid, and one or two offering housing assistance, depending on the state and the circumstance. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end welfare as we know it,"[14] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[18]
Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[17] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[14][17][19] The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care.[19] The federal government also maintains a contingency $2 billion TANF fund (TANF CF) to assist states that may have rising unemployment.[17] The new TANF program expired on September 30, 2010, on schedule with states drawing down the entire original emergency fund of $5 billion and the contingency fund of $2 billion allocated by ARRA. Reauthorization of TANF was not accomplished in 2011, but TANF block grants were extended as part of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (see Temporary Aid for Needy Families for details).
Following these changes, millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[19] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[14] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[19] The reforms were "widely applauded"[20] after "bitter protest."[14] The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years."[21] However, more recent studies have found that the reforms increased deep poverty by 130–150%.[22][23]
Critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls during the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, was due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient. The late 1990s were also considered an unusually strong economic time, and critics voiced their concern about what would happen in an economic downturn.[14]
National Review editorialized that the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will reverse the welfare-to-work provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s, and will again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.[18] One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history.[21] The House bill provides $4 billion to pay 80% of states' welfare caseloads.[17] Although each state received $16.5 billion annually from the federal government as welfare rolls dropped, they spent the rest of the block grant on other types of assistance rather than saving it for worse economic times.[16]
| Spending on largest Welfare Programs Federal Spending 2003–2013*[24] | ||
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Federal Programs |
Spending 2003* |
Spending 2013* |
| Medicaid Grants to States | $201,389 | $266,565 |
| Food Stamps (SNAP) | 61,717 | 82,603 |
| Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) | 40,027 | 55,123 |
| Supplemental Security Income (SSI) | 38,315 | 50,544 |
| Housing assistance | 37,205 | 49,739 |
| Child Nutrition Program (CHIP) | 13,558 | 20,842 |
| Support Payments to States, TANF | 28,980 | 20,842 |
| Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP) | 5,695 | 6,671 |
| Low Income Home Energy Assistance | 2,542 | 3,704 |
| Notes: * Spending in millions of dollars | ||
The following is a short timeline of welfare in the United States:[25]
1880s–1890s: Attempts were made to move poor people from work yards to poor houses if they were in search of relief funds.
1893–1894: Attempts were made at the first unemployment payments, but were unsuccessful due to the 1893–1894 recession.
1932: The Great Depression had gotten worse and the first attempts to fund relief failed. The "Emergency Relief Act", which gave local governments $300 million, was passed into law.
1933: In March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed Congress to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps.
1935: The Social Security Act was passed on June 17, 1935. The bill included direct relief (cash, food stamps, etc.) and changes for unemployment insurance.
1940: Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) was established.
1964: Johnson's War on Poverty is underway, and the Economic Opportunity Act was passed. Commonly known as "the Great Society"
1996: Passed under Clinton, the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" becomes law.
2013: Affordable Care Act goes into effect with large increases in Medicaid and subsidized medical insurance premiums go into effect.
Types
| 79 Means Tested Programs in U.S. (2011)[26] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Programs | Federal Spending* | State Spending* | Total Spending* |
| TOTAL cost in (billions) (2011) | $717 | $210 | $927 |
| Social Security OASDI (2013) | $785 | ||
| Medicare(2013) | $574 | ||
| TOTAL all programs (billions) | $2,286 | ||
| CASH ASSISTANCE (millions) | |||
| SSI/Old Age Assistance | 56,462 | 4,673 | 61,135 |
| Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable portion) | 55,652 | 55,652 | |
| Refundable Child Credit | 22,691 | 22,691 | |
| Make Work Pay Tax Credit (Refundable Portion) | 13,905 | 13,905 | |
| Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, old AFDC) | 6,883 | 6,877 | 13,760 |
| Foster Care Title IVE | 4,456 | 3,921 | 8,377 |
| Adoption Assistance Title IVE | 2,362 | 1,316 | 3,678 |
| General Assistance Cash | 2,625 | 2,625 | |
| Refugee Assistance | 168 | 168 | |
| General Assistance to Indians | 115 | 115 | |
| Assets for Independence | 24 | 24 | |
| CASH TOTAL | 162,718 | 19,412 | 182,130 |
| MEDICAL | |||
| Medicaid | 274,964 | 157,600 | 432,564 |
| SCHIP State Supplemental Health Insurance Program | 8,629 | 3,797 | 12,426 |
| Medical General Assistance | 6,966 | 6,966 | |
| Consolidated Health Center/Community Health Centers | 1,481 | 1,481 | |
| Maternal & Child Health | 656 | 492 | 1,148 |
| Medical Assistance to Refugees | 168 | 168 | |
| Healthy Start | 104 | 104 | |
| MEDICAL TOTAL | 289,817 | 168,855 | 458,672 |
| FOOD | |||
| Food Stamps, SNAP | 77,637 | 6,987 | 84,624 |
| School Lunch Program | 10,321 | 10,321 | |
| WIC Women, Infant and Children Food Program | 6,787 | 6,787 | |
| School Breakfast | 3,076 | 3,076 | |
| Child Care Food Program | 2,732 | 2,732 | |
| Nutrition Program for the Elderly, Nutrition Service Incentives | 820 | 139 | 959 |
| Summer Program | 376 | 376 | |
| Commodity Supplemental Food Program | 196 | 196 | |
| TEFAP Temporary Emergency Food Program | 247 | 247 | |
| Needy Families | 60 | 60 | |
| Farmers' Market Nutrition Program | 23 | 23 | |
| Special Milk Program | 13 | 13 | |
| FOOD TOTAL | 102,288 | 7,127 | 109,415 |
| HOUSING | |||
| Section 8 Housing (HUD) | 28,435 | 28,435 | |
| Public Housing (HUD) | 8,973 | 8,973 | |
| Low Income Housing Tax Credit for Developers | 6,150 | 6,150 | |
| Home Investment Partnership Program (HUD) | 2,853 | 2,853 | |
| Homeless Assistance Grants (HUD) | 2,280 | 2,280 | |
| State Housing Expenditures (from SWE) | 2,085 | 2,085 | |
| Rural Housing Insurance Fund (Agriculture) | 1,689 | 1,689 | |
| Rural Housing Service (Agriculture) | 1,085 | 1,085 | |
| Housing for the Elderly (HUD) | 934 | 934 | |
| Native American Housing Block Grants (HUD) | 854 | 854 | |
| Other Assisted Housing Programs (HUD) | 496 | 496 | |
| Housing for Persons with Disabilities (HUD) | 309 | 309 | |
| HOUSING TOTAL | 54,058 | 2,085 | 56,143 |
| ENERGY AND UTILITIES | |||
| LIHEAP Low Income Home Energy Assistance | 4,419 | 4,419 | |
| Universal Service Fund Subsidized Low Income Phone Service | 1,750 | 1,750 | |
| Weatherization | 234 | 234 | |
| ENERGY AND UTILITIES TOTAL | 6,403 | 6,403 | |
| EDUCATION | |||
| Pell Grants | 41,458 | 41,458 | |
| Title One Grants to Local Education Authorities | 14,472 | 14,472 | |
| 21st Century Learning Centers | 1,157 | 1,157 | |
| Special Programs for Disadvantaged (TRIO) | 883 | 883 | |
| Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants | 740 | 740 | |
| Adult Basic Education Grants | 607 | 607 | |
| Migrant Education | 444 | 444 | |
| Gear-Up | 303 | 303 | |
| LEAP Formerly State Student Incentive Grant Program (SSIG) |
1 | 1 | |
| Education for Homeless Children and Youth | 65 | 65 | |
| Even Start | 4 | 4 | |
| Aid for Graduate and Professional Study for Disadvantaged and Minorities | 41 | 41 | |
| EDUCATION TOTAL | 60,175 | 60,175 | |
| TRAINING | |||
| TANF Work Activities and Training | 2,505 | 832 | 3,337 |
| Job Corps | 1,659 | 1,659 | |
| WIA Youth Opportunity Grants Formerly Summer Youth Employment |
946 | 946 | |
| Senior Community Service Employment | 705 | 78 | 783 |
| WIA Adult Employment and Training Formerly JTPA IIA Training for Disadvantaged Adults & Youth |
766 | 766 | |
| Food Stamp Employment and Training Program | 393 | 166 | 559 |
| Foster Grandparents | 104 | 10 | 114 |
| YouthBuild | 110 | 110 | |
| Migrant Training | 85 | 85 | |
| Native American Training | 52 | 52 | |
| TRAINING TOTAL | 7,325 | 1,086 | 8,411 |
| SERVICES | |||
| TANF Block Grant Services | 5,385 | 4,838 | 10,223 |
| Title XX Social Services Block Grant | 1,787 | 1,787 | |
| Community Service Block Grant | 678 | 678 | |
| Social Services for Refugees Asylees and Humanitarian Cases | 417 | 417 | |
| Safe and Stable Families | 553 | 553 | |
| Title III Aging Americans Act | 369 | 369 | |
| Legal Services Block Grant | 406 | 406 | |
| Family Planning | 298 | 298 | |
| Emergency Food and Shelter Program | 48 | 48 | |
| Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | 50 | 50 | |
| Independent Living (Chafee Foster Care Independence Program) | 140 | 28 | 168 |
| Independent Living Training Vouchers | 45 | 45 | |
| Maternal, Infants and Children Home Visitation | 36 | 36 | |
| SERVICES TOTAL | 10,411 | 4,866 | 15,278 |
| CHILD CARE AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT | |||
| Headstart | 7,559 | 1,890 | 9,449 |
| Childcare and Child Development Block Grant | 2,984 | 2,176 | 5,160 |
| Childcare Entitlement to the States | 3,100 | 3,100 | |
| TANF Block Grant Child Care | 2,319 | 2,644 | 4,962 |
| CHILD CARE & CHILD DEVELOPMENT TOTAL | 15,962 | 6,710 | 22,671 |
| COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT | |||
| Community Development Block Grant and Related Development Funds | 7,445 | 7,445 | |
| Economic Development Administration (Dept. of Commerce) | 423 | 423 | |
| Appalachian Regional Development | 68 | 68 | |
| Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities Renewal | 1 | 1 | |
| COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL | 7,937 | 7,937 | |
| TOTAL in millions (2011) | $717,093 | $210,140 | $927,234 |
| Social Security OASDI (2013) | $785,700 | ||
| Medicare (2013) | $574,200 | ||
| TOTAL in millions | $2,287,133 | ||
* Spending in millions of dollars
2.3 Trillion Dollar Total of Social Security, Medicare and Means Tested Welfare is low since latest 2013 means tested data not available but 2013, the "real" TOTAL will be higher.
The Social Security program mainly refers to the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, and possibly the unemployment insurance program. Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB), also known as Old-age Insurance Benefits, are a form of social insurance payments made by the U.S. Social Security Administration paid based upon the attainment old age (62 or older).
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD or SSDI) is a federal insurance program that provides income supplements to people who are restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability.
Unemployment insurance, also known as unemployment compensation, provides for money, from the United States and the state collected from employers, to workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. The unemployment benefits are run by each state with different state defined criteria for duration, percent of income paid, etc.. Nearly all require the recipient to document their search for employment to continue receiving benefits. Extensions of time for receiving benefits are sometimes offered for extensive work unemployment. These extra benefits are usually in the form of loans from the federal government that have to be repaid by each state.
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children.
Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by the private sector. Health insurance in the United States is now primarily provided by the government in the public sector, with 60–65% of healthcare provision and spending coming from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration. Having some form of comprehensive health insurance is statutorily compulsory for most people lawfully residing within the US.[27]
Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over; to those who are under 65 and are permanently physically disabled or who have a congenital physical disability; or to those who meet other special criteria like the End Stage Renal Disease Program (ESRD). Medicare in the United States somewhat resembles a single-payer health care system but is not.[為何？] Before Medicare, only 51% of people aged 65 and older had health care coverage, and nearly 30% lived below the federal poverty level.
Medicaid is a health program for certain people and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and is managed by the states.[28] People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, including low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States.
The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a program administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides matching funds to states for health insurance to families with children.[29] The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.
The Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Block Grant (or ADMS Block Grant) is a federal assistance block grant given by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration has decided to cut $9 million in Affordable Care Act subsidies by 2018.[30] This action was taken by use of Executive Order 13813, on October 12, 2017.[31] The initial goal had been for Republicans in Congress to use their majority to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act, but they proved unable to do so;[32] therefore, the Trump administration itself took measures to weaken the program.[33] The healthcare changes are expected to be noticeable by the year 2019.[30]
Per capita spending on tertiary education is among the highest in the world[來源請求]. Public education is managed by individual states, municipalities and regional school districts. As in all developed countries, primary and secondary education is free, universal and mandatory. Parents do have the option of home-schooling their children, though some states, such as California (until a 2008 legal ruling overturned this requirement[34]), require parents to obtain teaching credentials before doing so. Experimental programs give lower-income parents the option of using government issued vouchers to send their kids to private rather than public schools in some states/regions.
As of 2007, more than 80% of all primary and secondary students were enrolled in public schools, including 75% of those from households with incomes in the top 5%. Public schools commonly offer after-school programs and the government subsidizes private after school programs, such as the Boys & Girls Club. While pre-school education is subsidized as well, through programs such as Head Start, many Americans still find themselves unable to take advantage of them. Some education critics have therefore proposed creating a comprehensive transfer system to make pre-school education universal, pointing out that the financial returns alone would compensate for the cost.
Tertiary education is not free, but is subsidized by individual states and the federal government. Some of the costs at public institutions is carried by the state.
The government also provides grants, scholarships and subsidized loans to most students. Those who do not qualify for any type of aid, can obtain a government guaranteed loan and tuition can often be deducted from the federal income tax. Despite subsidized attendance cost at public institutions and tax deductions, however, tuition costs have risen at three times the rate of median household income since 1982.[35] In fear that many future Americans might be excluded from tertiary education, progressive Democrats have proposed increasing financial aid and subsidizing an increased share of attendance costs. Some Democratic politicians and political groups have also proposed to make public tertiary education free of charge, i.e. subsidizing 100% of attendance cost.[來源請求]
In the U.S., financial assistance for food purchasing for low- and no-income people is provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program.[36] This federal aid program is administered by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but benefits are distributed by the individual U.S. states. It is historically and commonly known as the Food Stamp Program, though all legal references to "stamp" and "coupon" have been replaced by "EBT" and "card," referring to the refillable, plastic Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards that replaced the paper "food stamp" coupons. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, the recipients must have incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line, and also own few assets.[37] Since the economic downturn began in 2008, the use of food stamps has increased.[37]
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a child nutrition program for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. The eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines, but if a person participates in other benefit programs, or has family members who participate in SNAP, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they automatically meet the eligibility requirements.
The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a type of United States federal assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to states in order to provide a daily subsidized food service for an estimated 3.2 million children and 112,000 elderly or mentally or physically impaired adults[38] in non-residential, day-care settings.[39]
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 created Section 8 housing, the payment of rent assistance to private landlords on behalf of low-income households.
Impact
| Average Incomes and Taxes CBO Study 2009*[40] | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Households by Income (%) |
Market Income1 |
Federal Transfers 2 |
Income + Transfers |
Avg Federal Tax rate %3 |
Federal Taxes $4 |
% Federal Taxes Pd. 5 |
#W6 | % Net Income7 |
| 0–20 | 7,600 | 22,900 | 30,500 | 1.0 | 200 | 0.3 | 0.42 | 6.2 |
| 21–40 | 30,100 | 14,800 | 45,000 | 6.8 | 2,900 | 3.8 | 0.90 | 11.1 |
| 41–60 | 54,200 | 10,400 | 64,600 | 11.1 | 7,200 | 9.4 | 1.29 | 15.8 |
| 61–80 | 86,400 | 7,100 | 93,500 | 15.1 | 14,100 | 18.3 | 1.70 | 21.6 |
| 80–100 | 218,800 | 6,000 | 224,800 | 23.2 | 51,900 | 67.9 | 1.97 | 47.2 |
| Source: Congressional Budget Office Study[40] 1. Market Income = All wages, tips, incomes etc. as listed on Income tax form 2. Federal Transfers = all EITC, CTC, medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), Social Security, SSI etc. received 3. Average tax rate includes all Social Security, Medicare, income, business income, excise, etc. taxes. 4. Net Federal taxes paid in dollars 5. Percent of all federal taxes paid 6. #W = Average number of workers per household in this quintile 7. % Net Income = percentage of all national income each quintile receives after taxes and transfers. | ||||||||
According to a 2020 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, government programs that focus on improving low-income children's health and educational outcomes are the most effective social programs in the United States, with benefits substantial enough that the US government recoups its investment.[41]
According to the Congressional Budget Office, social programs significantly raise the standard of living for low-income Americans, particularly the elderly. The poorest 20% of American households earn a before-tax average of only $7,600, less than half of the federal poverty line. Social programs increase such households' before-tax income to $30,500. Social Security and Medicare are responsible for two thirds of that increase.[40]
Political scientist Benjamin Radcliff has argued that more generous social programs produce a higher quality of life for all citizens, rich and poor alike, as such programs not only improve life for those directly receiving benefits (or living in fear of someday needing them, from the prospect of unemployment or illness) but also reduce the social pathologies (such as crime and anomie) that are the result of poverty and insecurity. By creating a society with less poverty and less insecurity, he argues, we move closer to creating a nation of shared prosperity that works to the advantage of all. Thus, his research suggests, life satisfaction (or "happiness") is strongly related to the generosity of the social safety net (what economists often call decommodification), whether looking across the industrial democracies or across the American states.[42]
Complaints of mistreatment in navigating the welfare state are commonplace, with most unpleasant encounters arising from interactions between welfare recipients and social workers.[43] The dominant approach to social work was casework which emphasized the personal characteristics or moral deficiencies of the recipient rather than social reform. In some cases the said deficiency was grounds for denying assistance. Casework fostered a paternalistic and demeaning relationship between social workers and clients. Caseworkers are the persons who have the most opportunity for showing respect or disrespect to the welfare client.[43] Attitudes of welfare clients toward their caseworkers are described not as much in terms of what they receive in their checks but rather in terms of the relationship that they have with their caseworker; a study found that the way in which a client was shown respect was often more important to the client than what the provider in the situation did to solve the client’s problems.[44]
As such, there has been work in the private and public sector to target the relationships between social worker and welfare recipients as a way to improve access to social provisions and ease the transition from welfare to work. In a study conducted of the association between the relationship held between people with mental health illnesses who are arrested and sent to mental health court with the mental health court (MHC) caseworker assigned to their case and outcomes, researchers found that perceived conflict with caseworkers was higher in a number of participants who were terminated or missing from MHC. Participants who reported less conflict with an assigned caseworker utilized more services and spent fewer days in jail.[45] The study shows the importance a perceived bond has on a participant's use of services, with less perceived conflict resulting in an increase of service use and program retention and decrease in jail time served.[45] Similar results were found in an evaluation of the impact of eleven different welfare-to-work approaches on adults and children in the course of five years.[46] Two programs who had lower enforcement of the participation mandate compared to the other nine, had little to no impact on employment and earnings if its participants. It appears that a minimum level of involvement and enforcement by program staff is required to produce a moderate improvement in employment—without it, participants who would not participate on their own volition would not engage in the program’s activities and reap the benefits from them.[46] Within the same evaluation it was found that programs that appointed one caseworker per person rather than the traditional two, had better outcomes for participants than programs that had assigned two caseworkers per person.[46]
When a social worker demonstrates to her clients by her actions that she respects them, a relationship is able to grow. Clients who feel respected by their social worker will be more likely to freely discuss difficult topics, explore their own contributions, and appoint themselves in efforts to achieve specific outcomes.[47] A client’s perception of their provider’s level of regard for them was significantly related to their ability to achieve a certain outcome at the end of their program. Respect, although important throughout all phases of service, it is particularly crucial to interactions among newcomers or strangers.[47] Such expressions would include vocal sounds (ex. greeting, calling), physical movements (ex. serving, guiding), bodily movements (acknowledging, polite posture), appearance (ex. proper dressing, grooming), and so forth.[48]
When grievances do need be addressed by the welfare beneficiaries, they usually seek the assistance of a lawyer or advocate. Because advocacy is a practice of speaking for the advocate, no matter how 「rebellious」 they aspire to be, they inevitably perpetuate the same subordination of their client as the system they attempt to combat[49] Lucie White presents this point in her 「Goldberg v Kelly On the Paradox of Lawyering for the Poor」 and proposes that when lawyers are representing poor welfare recipients, lawyers need to continuously cede to 「clients」 the power to speak for themselves. Such an act would transform the lawyer from a professional service that is imposed upon subordinated communities to partners that allow clients to take the lead of their own advocacy.[49]
Analysis
According to a 2012 review study, whether a social program generates public support depends on[50]:
- whether the program is universal or targeted towards certain groups
- the size of the social program benefits (larger benefits incentivize greater mobilization to defend a social program)
- the visibility and traceability of the benefits (whether recipients know where the benefits come from)
- the proximity and concentration of the beneficiaries (this affects the ease by which beneficiaries can organize to protect a social program)
- the duration of the benefits (longer benefits incentivize greater mobilization to defend a social program)
- the manner in which a program is administered (e.g. is the program inclusive, does it follow principles?)
| Characteristics of Households by Quintile 2010[51] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Household Income Bracket (%) |
0–20 | 21–40 | 41–60 | 61–80 | 81–100 |
| Earners Per Household | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 2.0 |
| Marital Status | |||||
| Married couples (%) | 17.0 | 35.9 | 48.8 | 64.3 | 78.4 |
| Single Parents or Single (%) | 83.0 | 64.1 | 51.2 | 35.7 | 21.6 |
| Ages of Householders | |||||
| Under 35 | 23.3 | 24 | 24.5 | 21.8 | 14.6 |
| 36–64 years | 43.6 | 46.6 | 55.4 | 64.3 | 74.7 |
| 65 years + | 33.1 | 29.4 | 20.1 | 13.9 | 10.7 |
| Work Status householders (%) | |||||
| Worked Full Time (%) | 17.4 | 44.7 | 61.1 | 71.5 | 77.2 |
| Worked Part Time (%) | 14.3 | 13.3 | 11.1 | 9.8 | 9.5 |
| Did Not Work (%) | 68.2 | 42.1 | 27.8 | 17.7 | 13.3 |
| Education of Householders (%) | |||||
| Less than High School | 26.7 | 16.6 | 8.8 | 5.4 | 2.2 |
| High School or some College | 61.2 | 65.4 | 62.9 | 58.5 | 37.6 |
| Bachelor's degree or Higher | 12.1 | 18.0 | 28.3 | 36.1 | 60.3 |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau [來源可靠？] | |||||
Social programs have been implemented to promote a variety of societal goals, including alleviating the effects of poverty on those earning or receiving low income or encountering serious medical problems, and ensuring retired people have a basic standard of living.
Unlike in Europe, Christian democratic and social democratic theories have not played a major role in shaping welfare policy in the United States.[52] Entitlement programs in the U.S. were virtually non-existent until the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the implementation of the New Deal programs in response to the Great Depression. Between 1932 and 1981, modern American liberalism dominated U.S. economic policy and the entitlements grew along with American middle class wealth.[53]
Eligibility for welfare benefits depends on a variety of factors, including gross and net income, family size, pregnancy, homelessness, unemployment, and serious medical conditions like blindness, kidney failure or AIDS.
 |
The United States adopted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, which gave individual states the authority to drug test welfare recipients. Drug testing in order for potential recipients to receive welfare has become an increasingly controversial topic. Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina claims he pushes for drug screening as a matter of "moral obligation" and that testing should be enforced as a way for the United States government to discourage drug usage.[54] Others claim that ordering the needy to drug test "stereotypes, stigmatizes, and criminalizes" them without need.[55] States that currently require drug tests to be performed in order to receive public assistance include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah.[56]
Some have argued that welfare has come to be associated with poverty. Political scientist Martin Gilens argues that blacks have overwhelmingly dominated images of poverty over the last few decades and states that "white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare".[58] This perception possibly perpetuates negative racial stereotypes and could increase Americans' opposition and racialization of welfare policies.[58]
In FY 2010, African-American families comprised 31.9% of TANF families, white families comprised 31.8%, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[59] Since the implementation of TANF, the percentage of Hispanic families has increased, while the percentages of white and black families have decreased. In FY 1997, African-American families represented 37.3% of TANF recipient families, white families 34.5%, and Hispanic families 22.5%.[60] As of 2013, the US population as a whole is composed of 63.7% whites, 16.3% Hispanic, 12.5% African-American, 4.8% Asian and 2.9% other races.[61] TANF programs at a cost of about $20.0 billion (2013) have decreased in use as Earned Income Tax Credits, Medicaid grants, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), child nutrition programs, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), housing assistance, Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP), along with about 70 more programs, have increased to over $700 billion more in 2013.[62]
The Great Recession made a large impact on welfare spending. In a 2011 article, Forbes reported, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is $717 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending of about $210 billion, total welfare spending for 2010 reached over $920 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)"—and increasing fast.[63] The previous decade had seen a 60% decrease in the number of people receiving welfare benefits,[19] beginning with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, but spending did not decrease proportionally during that time period. Combined annual federal and state spending is the equivalent of over $21,000 for every person living below poverty level in America.[64]
See also
- Administration of federal assistance in the United States
- Wealth inequality in the United States
- Welfare economics
- Welfare in California
- Welfare in Puerto Rico
References
- Hacker, Jacob S. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle Over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States
. Cambridge University Press. 2002-09-09: 29–30. ISBN 9780521013284. 含有內容需登入查看的頁面 (link) - Hacker, Jacob S. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle Over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. Cambridge University Press. 2002-09-09: 31. ISBN 9780521013284. 含有內容需登入查看的頁面 (link)
- Skocpol, Theda. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. Harvard University Press. 1992 [2020-03-21] （英語）.
- English Poor Laws. Social Welfare History Project. 2011-01-19 [2018-07-05].
- Employer neglect factoring into workers compensation.. Ben Davis Law. 2015-12-01 [2018-07-05].
- What Happened During the Great Depression?. The Balance. [2018-07-05].
- About the Great Depression. english.illinois.edu. [2018-07-05].
- Civilian Conservation Corps: Definition and Facts. History.com. [2018-07-05].
- Robert Whaples; Randall E. Parker (編). Routledge Handbook of Modern Economic History. Routledge. 2013: 8. ISBN 9780415677042.
- Fishback, Price V.; Haines, Michael R.; Kantor, Shawn. Births,eaths, and New Deal relief during the Great Depression. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2007, 89 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1162/rest.89.1.1.
- Deparle, Jason. Welfare Aid Isn't Growing as Economy Drops Off. The New York Times. 2009-02-02 [2009-02-12].
- Poverty Facts – Poverty Solutions. npc.umich.edu. The University of Michigan. [28 March 2018].
- Welfare Rolls See First Climb in Years. The Washington Post. 2008-12-17 [2009-02-13].
- Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending. Heritage Foundation. 2009-02-11 [2009-02-12].
- Ending Welfare Reform as We Knew It. The National Review. 2009-02-12 [2009-02-12].[失效連結]
- Goodman, Peter S. From Welfare Shift in '96, a Reminder for Clinton. The New York Times. 2008-04-11 [2009-02-12].
- Change for the Worse. New York Post. 2009-01-30 [2009-02-12].[失效連結]
- AllenMills, Tony. Obama warned over 'welfare spendathon'. The Times (London). 2009-02-15 [2009-02-15].
- Sanders: Welfare reform more than doubled 'extreme poverty'. politifact.com. [28 March 2018].
- "Welfare Reform History Timeline – 1900s to current United States." SearchBeat. Web. 12 Oct. 2009. <http://society.searchbeat.com/welfare9.htm>.
- Individual Mandate Penalty You Pay If You Don't Have Health Insurance Coverage. HealthCare.gov. [28 March 2018].
- Medicaid General Information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (CMS) website
- Sultz, H., & Young, K. Health Care USA Understanding its Organization and Delivery. p. 257
- Pear, Robert; Haberman, Maggie; Abelson, Reed. Trump to Scrap Critical Health Care Subsidies, Hitting Obamacare Again. The New York Times. 12 October 2017 [28 March 2018].
- List of executive actions by Donald Trump#cite note-215 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/12/presidential-executive-order-promoting-healthcare-choice-and-competition
- Everett, Burgess. Republicans Give Up on Obamacare Repeal. Politico. 1 February 2018 [8 April 2018].
- Donald J. Trump on Twitter. Twitter. [28 March 2018].
- Jonathan L. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.4th 1074 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2008). Text of opinion
- Lewin, Tamar. NYT on increase in tuition. The New York Times. [2009-01-15]. （原始內容存檔於2013-01-30）.
- "Nutrition Assistance Program Home Page" 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期November 19, 2012，., U.S. Department of Agriculture (official website), March 3, 2011 (last revised). Accessed March 4, 2011.
- Erik Eckholm. Food stamp use in U.S. at record pace as jobs vanish. The New York Times. March 31, 2008 [January 30, 2012].
- Why CACFP Is Important, Child and Adult Care Food Program Homepage, Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of Agriculture
- Child and Adult Care Food Program (CFDA 10.558);OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2009-06-21.; Part 4: Agency Program Requirements: Department of Housing and Urban Development, p. 4-10.558-1
- ^ 引用錯誤：沒有為名為
:1的參考文獻提供內容 - Radcliff, Benjamin (2013) The Political Economy of Human Happiness (New York: Cambridge University Press). See also this collection of full-text peer reviewed scholarly articles on this subject by Radcliff and colleagues (from "Social Forces," "The Journal of Politics," and "Perspectives on Politics," among others) [8]
- Nadasen, Premilla. Welfare Warriors: The Welfare Rights Movement in the United States. Routledge. 2014-06-17. ISBN 9781136743696.
- Green, Edward J. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment, Allan Gibbard. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990, x + 346 pages.. Economics and Philosophy. October 1991, 7 (2): 289–295. ISSN 0266-2671. doi:10.1017/s0266267100001449.
- Canada, Kelli E.; Epperson, Matthew W. The client-caseworker relationship and its association with outcomes among mental health court participants. Community Mental Health Journal. November 2014, 50 (8): 968–973. ISSN 1573-2789. PMID 24557529. doi:10.1007/s10597-014-9713-z.
- mdrc.org (PDF) https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_391.pdf. [2018-12-15]. 缺少或
|title=為空 (幫助) - Sung, Kyu-taik; Dunkle, Ruth E. How Social Workers Demonstrate Respect for Elderly Clients. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. April 2009, 52 (3): 250–260. ISSN 0163-4372. PMC 3110652
. PMID 19308830. doi:10.1080/01634370802609247. - Sung, Kyu-taik. Elder respect: exploration of ideals and forms in East Asia. Journal of Aging Studies. March 2001, 15 (1): 13–26. ISSN 0890-4065. doi:10.1016/s0890-4065(00)00014-1.
- White, L.E. Goldberg v. kelly on the paradox of lawyering for the poor. Brooklyn Law Review. 1990, 56 (3): 861–888.
- Campbell, Andrea Louise. Policy Makes Mass Politics. Annual Review of Political Science. 2012-05-11, 15 (1): 333–351. ISSN 1094-2939. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-012610-135202.
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1991). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- G. William Domhoff. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power. Sociology.ucsc.edu. [2012-08-14].
- Goetzl, Celia. Government Mandated Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients: Special Need or Unconstitutional Condition?. [October 24, 2013].
- Cohen, Robin. Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients. OLR Research Report. [October 24, 2013].
- 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Figure TANF 2.
- Gilens, Martin (1996). "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media." Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, pp. 515–41 (516).
- "Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients – Fiscal Year 2010". United States Department of Health and Human Services.
- "Demographic And Financial Characteristics Of Families Receiving Assistance 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2016-01-26.". United States Department of Health and Human Services.
- Ferrara, Peter. America's Ever Expanding Welfare Empire. Forbes. 2011-04-22 [2012-04-10].
- Tanner, Michael. The War on Poverty: Are We Winning Yet? (PDF). Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 20 October 2014,. Number 761: 3 [2 July 2015].
Further reading
- MaCurdy, Thomas; Jones, Jeffrey M. Welfare. David R. Henderson (編). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics 2nd. Library of Economics and Liberty. 2008. ISBN 9780865976658. OCLC 237794267.
- Alison Siskin, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview, Congressional Research Service, 12 December 2016
Template:Contemporary social welfare programs in the United States Template:United States topics
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
