Implications for upcoming elections
Social welfare systems around the world offer services to people considered in need or relatively poor. It has replaced the stigma of charity, but operates within similar framework by governments. Social scientists view the system as a political /social control mechanism to keep minorities within their boundaries as a method of progressing structural inequality by promoting social order. The following pages of this document will explore the amendment of social welfare act for pro vision House Bill No. 4051
Introduction
On January 13, 2011, representatives Meadows and Agema introduced an amendment to a1939 PA 280, known as "The social welfare act," (MCL 400.1 to 400.119b) by adding section 57v. Thereafter, it was referred to the Committee on Families, Children, and seniors. House bill No. 4051 proposed to enact legislation regulating use of the MI Bride token used to execute food stamp and cash assistance benefits. The law specifically intends to prohibit use of MI Bridge cards at ATM machines and to purchase alcohol tobacco and lottery tickets (House Bill No.4501, 2011).
This 1939 PA 280 Social welfare act is expected to provide services for legal residents and citizens who are physically disabled, the elderly and children without appropriate financial support. In executing these services the department of human services prescribes how these services are to be executed and eligibility of are the beneficiaries. They have the power to ‘make an appropriation; to prescribe penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act; and to repeal certain parts of this act on specific dates ‘(House Bill No 4501, 2011).
In relation to the ideological context of this house bill Pierson (2006) quoting Edmund Burke (1790) reiterated that ‘government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants’ (Pierson, 2006). However, they chose from a variety of actions on how to execute social welfare services to citizens of a nation in a social welfare state. These include establishing rules; prohibiting actions through coercion; paying for services or providing subsidies. It is within this ideological framework the House bill 4051 will be analyzed in this presentation.
Perspectives in relation to four ideologies advanced by Peter Blau
On the other hand applying liberalism to the House Bill No. 49051 it would appear that the liberty of making choices as to how Michigan legal residents or citizen use the MI Bridge card/funds has been circumvented. One then questions the right of a welfare system to dictate what beneficiaries’ do with this privilege, especially if they are tax payers. Liberalism according to Blau (1964) tends to offer members of a society freedom and equality. While an equitable distribution of resources is attempted there is no liberty of the welfare recipient to use it as he/she pleases according to the provision of House Bill No. 4051 (Scott, 2009).
There seems to be no significant gender biases espoused by the House Bill No. 4051 since the decision to prohibit use of MI Bridge card at an ATM or to purchase alcohol, lottery tickets and tobacco is not related particularly to women for attempts of protest to be focused from this perspective. Feminism ideological paradigm seeks to establish an equal opportunity political playing field for every woman in society. The social problem here is controlling what beneficiaries do with the money they receive from social services and how it is accessed (Messer-Davidow, 2002).
How radical then is this decision by Michigan department of human services? Of course, it is a revolution restricting the means by which beneficiaries access this money that is offered. Questions raised are whether the ATM aspect of this bill is really necessary or just a radical approach to limiting rights and freedoms of minorities in the society. It would appear that beggars are not choosers from the ideological premise of this bill when radicalism is examined.
Political radicalism is a deliberate attempt by government to alter the social structure or administration of social justice in many instances. Provisions under the House Bill No.4501 appear to be embracing this ideological position. Radicalism also attempts to change at the root (Abcarian, 2002). What behavior in the House Bill No.4501 is being change from the root could be questioned?
Clearly, the use of MI Bridge card for purposes of providing food or food equivalent services only. However, while this could be understood as a logical requirement, the radical approach of restricting withdrawal of money from an ATM seems very unorthodox since in modern societies this practice is acceptable. The rationale informing this clause ought to be more explicit.
Current Ideological Context
The apparent current dominant ideological premise for perpetuating House Bill No.4501 is conservatism. This ideology lends itself to allowing tradition to prevail. In many cases it can become extreme as prohibiting use of MI Bridge cards at ATM machines. Does this mean that beneficiaries must remain stuck in tradition using this card just to make purchases without having any cash in hand to use as they feel best?
Conservatist arguments point towards non acknowledgement of the ideological infiltration in social welfare services administration. However, current trends as demonstrated in House Bill No. 4501 makes its ideological influence of social welfare rather obvious. However, the present political administration appears to be more liberal democratic than Conservatist. Hence, there could be some delay or rejection of this bill entirely.
Influence of Ideology towards passing of the House Bill No. 4051
‘Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants’ (Pierson, 2006). At the same time government uses its privileges to execute ideologies consistent with the political administrative polices. As such, the influence of ideology towards passage of House Bill No. 4501 lays in whether there is a Conservatist policy or liberal. Conservatist would vote for House Bill No.4501 whereas liberals ask questions regarding the submergence of morality and violating human rights.
Effects of politics on the passage of the House Bill No. 4051
The political process related to passage of House Bill No. 4501 within the American context involves first being attached to a legislature. In this case the legislature is the Social Welfare Act 1939 PA 280. This process is the first stage in acknowledging the request. House bill No. 4501 has been proposed for consideration.
However, in the context of US politics the bill has to be transferred to a committee, which scrutinizes the clauses and political appropriateness. House Bill No.4501 has been transferred to the Committee on Families, Children, and seniors. These committees offer the final verdict as to whether a bill should be passed or rejected. Therefore, this political process can affect the smooth passage of House Bill No. 4501 once it gets to the Committee depending on the ideological disposition of this committee.
Political Actors involved in hindering passage of the House Bill No. 4051
Political actors are the liberals who approve social change and support the right to freedom of choice at all levels of life. House Bill No. 4501initiates social action by many interest groups within Michigan community and across America. Already there are reactions from grass root minorities who feel that this is an unfair legislature. They believe that it violates their right to freedom of choice and places them at risk of a dictatorships welfare system.
Party support –Democrats/ Republicans
The obvious party supporters are Republican. The bill seemed to be their initiative. There are no concrete figures available form research polls showing differences between Republicans and Democrats’ influences on this bill. Speculations are Democrats do not favor of passing House Bill No. 4501 even though they support controlling how federal funds are dispersed.
Conclusion
Implications for the upcoming elections point towards loss of minority support to whichever party supports House Bill No. 4501. It must be considered that the people on welfare vote and pay taxes. In another sense limiting the way they use these funds, to the extreme of making ATM withdrawal a violation seems ridiculous. Hence, even if the voting politics concedes to not using money to purchase lottery tickets, tobacco and alcohol the ATM aspect needs to be modified for voters’ justification.
References
Abcarian, G. (2002) American Political Radicalism: Contemporary Issues and Orientations.
New York. Sage Publications.
Blau, P. ( 1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley
House Bill No. 4501 (2011). Michigan State Law. Michigan
Messer-Davidow, Ellen (2002). Disciplining Feminism: From Social Activism to Academic
Discourse. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press
Pierson, C. (2006). Beyond the welfare state, Cambridge: Polity.
Scott, A. (2009). Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation. New York: Oxford
