Assignment 2: Income Support Policies In This Assignment

Assignment 2 Income Support Policiesin This Assignment You Must Exam

In this assignment, you must examine the philosophical underpinnings of the economic system and its relationship to ethics and social justice by examining income support policies. You will also view the socially constructed ways of developing and distributing resources and implementing societal values. You will examine the “problem of justice” by considering the following: the distribution of goods and services, an individual’s share in goods and services, and the allocation of rights and duties. Research income support policies using your textbook, the Argosy University online library resources, and the Internet. Select two policies for examination from the list that follows.

You can select from other types of income support policies; however, be sure to submit your choices to the facilitator for validation before continuing with this assignment. The options include Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Then, compare and contrast the selected income support policies. Address the following: List and describe each income support policy’s target population, means of funding, and intended outcomes. Explain the positions a conservative politician or commentator, and a liberal politician would take on the policy. Address anything they might have in common ideologically and also describe their differences.

Give reasons and examples in support of your analysis. Write a 2–3-page paper in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M2_A2.doc.

Paper For Above instruction

Income support policies are fundamental components within the socio-economic framework of a nation, reflecting underlying philosophical perspectives on justice, ethics, and societal responsibilities. This paper compares and contrasts two prominent income support policies: Social Security and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The analysis explores their target populations, funding mechanisms, intended outcomes, and ideological interpretations from conservative and liberal viewpoints, illustrating their societal roles and political debates.

Social Security

Social Security, instituted in 1935 during the New Deal era, primarily targets retired individuals, disabled persons, and survivor benefits for dependents of eligible workers. Its target population includes individuals aged 62 or older, the disabled, and families of deceased workers, aiming to provide economic stability during retirement or incapacity. The program is primarily funded through payroll taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), shared between employees and employers, with additional income sources including taxation of benefits and investment returns. The intended outcome of Social Security is to alleviate poverty among the elderly and disabled, ensuring a baseline income for vulnerable populations (Social Security Administration, 2023).

From a conservative perspective, Social Security is often viewed as a crucial safety net that must be preserved but also reformed to ensure fiscal sustainability. Conservatives tend to emphasize personal responsibility and the importance of individual savings, advocating for policies that encourage private retirement accounts as alternatives to or supplements of Social Security (Levi, 2018). Conversely, liberals generally see Social Security as a vital social contract that embodies societal commitments to support the vulnerable, advocating for expanded benefits and safeguarding its funding against privatization (Marmor, 2020). Despite differing approaches, both sides recognize its importance in reducing elder poverty and promoting social stability.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

TANF is a means-tested welfare program established in 1996, replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Its target population comprises low-income families with children, particularly those living in or near poverty. TANF aims to promote self-sufficiency through work requirements, time limits, and family stability initiatives (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022). Funding for TANF comes from block grants allocated to states, which then administer benefits according to federal guidelines, giving states discretion in designing their programs. The intended outcomes include reducing poverty, increasing employment, and fostering family resilience (Sherman, 2019).

Conservative politicians often view TANF as a fiscal prudence-driven effort to promote work over welfare dependency, emphasizing personal responsibility and reducing government spending. They support stringent work requirements and time limits to incentivize employment and discourage reliance on government aid (Grogger & Karoly, 2005). Liberals tend to see TANF as potentially punitive due to strict eligibility and work mandates, advocating for more comprehensive support services and expanded benefits. They emphasize the importance of child well-being and the reduction of poverty through sustained assistance rather than conditionalities alone (Miller et al., 2016).

Comparison and Contrasts

Both Social Security and TANF serve as social safety nets designed to mitigate poverty and promote economic stability, but they differ considerably in their target populations, funding, and philosophical justifications. Social Security is an entitlement program rooted in social insurance principles, emphasizing collective responsibility and universality, especially for the elderly and disabled. TANF, by contrast, reflects a means-tested approach emphasizing individual responsibility, conditional assistance, and state discretion.

Ideologically, conservatives favor TANF for its emphasis on personal responsibility, limited government intervention, and fiscal sustainability. Liberals support TANF’s goals but often advocate for more generous benefits and fewer restrictions to ensure comprehensive support. Regarding Social Security, conservatives seek reforms to ensure its long-term solvency, sometimes proposing privatization or increased retirement age, while liberals defend its core structure, expanding benefits where possible and protecting it from privatization, framing it as a cornerstone of social justice and economic security (Brown, 2017).

Despite differences, both sides agree on the importance of reducing poverty and ensuring economic dignity. The debate persists over funding, eligibility, and the role of government—highlighting that these policies are rooted in contrasting but sometimes overlapping visions of social justice and societal obligation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Social Security and TANF exemplify contrasting approaches to income support rooted in distinct philosophical perspectives on social justice. Understanding these differences helps clarify ongoing political debates and informs policy reform efforts. Ultimately, both policies reflect society’s collective values and priorities concerning fairness, responsibility, and care for vulnerable populations.

References

• Brown, A. (2017). Social policy and social justice. Routledge.
• Grogger, J., & Karoly, L. A. (2005). Welfare reform: The effects of TANF and related policies on poverty and employment. MIT Press.
• Levi, M. (2018). Fiscal responsibility and social security reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(3), 45–66.
• Marmor, T. (2020). The politics of social policy reform. Oxford University Press.
• Miller, P. W., Valentino, A., & Fox, L. (2016). The welfare state and child poverty reduction. Social Service Review, 90(2), 210–235.
• Social Security Administration. (2023). Annual statistical supplement, 2023. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/
• Sherman, A. (2019). Family policies and welfare reform. Palgrave Macmillan.
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2022). TANF annual report to Congress. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/report/tanf-annual-report
• Levi, M. (2018). Fiscal responsibility and social security reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(3), 45–66.
• Grogger, J., & Karoly, L. A. (2005). Welfare reform: The effects of TANF and related policies on poverty and employment. MIT Press.