Preschool Family And Social History: Fill & Download for Free

After hearing variations of this private charity/welfare argument made by conservative family members, I spent a lot of time looking into this question. I found it was most helpful to look at the history of welfare.EARLY HISTORY OF WELFAREIn fact, during the 19th century, there was already a combination of public and private welfare systems working in the United States. Churches and private charities did play a major role, but I’ll list a few of the state-run systems. For example, after the Civil War, the government created pensions for retired veterans. During the 19th century, the government also played a major role in providing disaster relief for fires, floods, storms, droughts, famine, etc. And in those early years, state governments constructed poorhouses, which were meant to provide a very minimum level of support for poor, able-bodied men. But they eventually became the default support for orphans, the mentally ill, and the elderly without income or family to support them. (Sadly, the conditions were really terrible, and thankfully this practice was ended). Between 1911 and 1920, 40 states passed laws establishing “mother’s pensions” for single women with children. At that time, lawmakers and the public agreed that this state welfare would best serve the families and society by allowing children to remain in the care of their mothers and prevent juvenile delinquency. Unfortunately, this system was flawed in that it excluded a large number of divorced, deserted, and minority mothers and their children.Then the Great Depression hit. And when the Great Depression began, there were already about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already living at a bare subsistence level in the United States. Previously, state and local governments, churches and private charities had helped these people. But during the Great Depression of the 1930’s, about 25% of the country was unemployed. These state and local governments and private charities were now completely overwhelmed by the number of needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. Food riots broke out, husbands and fathers deserted their families, and homeless families 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.In addition, 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 who had money set aside for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929.In 1931, President Hoover said that any response to the economic crisis must “maintain the spirit of charity and mutual self-help through voluntary giving”. This is very similar to the argument made by conservatives today. But, as noble as that goal may be, it failed. The churches and private charities were inherently incapable of meeting the demand for social services on their own. When President Roosevelt took office in 1933, he acted swiftly to try to stabilize the economy and provide jobs and relief to those who were suffering. The first two years of his “New Deal” emphasized providing 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 during 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. By 1934, there was a general recognition that the local, state and national government would need to bear the primary responsibility for the relief of unemployment, absolute poverty, and social insurance. Churches and charities would fill in the targeted, narrow, yet important gaps in this broad baseline of coverage.In 1935, FDR went on to pass the Social Security Act, which set up a federal retirement program for persons over 65, unemployment insurance, and called for guaranteed benefits for poor single mothers and their children along with other dependent persons. Amended in 1939, the act established a number of programs. Unemployment compensation and AFDC (originally Aid to Dependent Children) are two of the programs that still exist today.In 1946, President Harry Truman said “This Government, through its public welfare program, has long since accepted its responsibility to see that no citizen need face hunger, unemployment, or a destitute old age. The word “charity” has regained its old, true meaning – that of good will toward one’s fellowman; of brotherhood, of mutual help, of love”. These are the ills that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance, and our other public systems of social insurance set out to combat in FDR’s New Deal and President Johnson’s Great Society. And for a few decades, Americans understood that these systems benefit both individuals and the greater public.RECENT HISTORY OF WELFAREIn 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Under the act, the federal government gives annual lump sums to the states to use to assist the poor. In turn the states must adhere to certain criteria to ensure that those receiving aid are being encouraged to move from welfare to work. The initiative helped lower the number of families on welfare; 20 years ago, 12 million families used the program, and today that number has dropped to 3.5 million.Since job training and child care are important components of such programs, proponents acknowledged that "workfare" programs save little money in the short term. They contended, however, that workfare would reduce welfare costs and move people away from government dependency over the long term. However, some commentators attributed much of the success to the strong economy of the late 1990′s that produced jobs for those coming off welfare. They also noted that welfare recipients were employed in mostly low-wage jobs. Moreover, as the economy took a nosedive in 2001 and 2002, unemployment rose. By the end of 2002, welfare caseloads had increased in 26 states.THE GREAT RECESSIONThe Great Recession in 2008 actually offers the perfect case study in why the voluntary private sector can’t adequately provide for the welfare needs of our population. As the Great Recession began, private charity did not step up to provide for the unemployed, but rather fell. In fact, charitable giving fell 21% overall between 2008 and 2010. The role that the federal government played during this time was incredibly important in effectively easing the pain felt because of the crisis. There is a system in place whereby “automatic stabilizers”, such as unemployment insurance and food assistance, maintain an income floor and security for people. These stabilizers, in turn, also decline automatically as the economy starts to recover. There are plenty of good arguments to be made regarding how the government could have been more effective in their response to the Great Recession, but it is pretty clear that under these economic circumstances, a voluntary system would have failed.CURRENT REALITIESThis is really important. The media and our lawmakers do not like to talk about these issues, so I think most people are in the dark about how bad things are for a significant portion of Americans.· 1 in 4 Americans makes less than $10/hr. Nearly 2 in 5 existing jobs pay less than $15/hr.· Nearly half of new jobs are low wage jobs.· Almost half of all Americans (more than 146 million Americans) are in the poor-but-working class. This term, the “working poor”, is defined as “those whose incomes do not cover basic needs: foods, clothing, housing, transportation, childcare, and healthcare”.· From 2007 to 2010, the median net worth for middle class families dropped by nearly 40%. That’s the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle class family· In any given month, 1 in 4 children in the United States receives SNAP benefits. Nearly a third of preschoolers participate in SNAP.· 78% of Americans, working full-time, are living paycheck-to-paycheck.· 34% of Americans have no savings at all.· Half of all households with Americans 55 years old and older have no retirement savings at all.· Currently, there are 6.4 million part-time workers who would rather have full-time jobs. This number of involuntary part-time workers is almost 45% higher than in 2007.All of these statistics were true (only to a slightly lesser degree) before the start of the Trump administration, but conditions are steadily worsening. The United Nations has recently released a report on poverty and inequality in the United States, and it is illuminating. Statement on Visit to the USA, by Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights*CHARITABLE GIVINGIt is important to note that voluntary charity has an important role to play – it can function with ultimate flexibility and sensitivity to specific situations, specific individuals, and local community needs. (Like helping out a family whose house has just burned down or for a unique financial need, etc.) But it would be under a tremendous burden if all government-run social programs were ended. For example, charity will exist in some places more abundantly than in others, but the government has the ability to provide a more universal baseline of coverage. Studies have found that only 1/3 of charitable giving actually goes to the poor. The largest single category of charitable giving in the US goes directly to support the operations of churches (around 32% of donations). But most churches will give the majority of it to missionaries, ministry programs, the pastors & staff salaries, facility maintenance and utilities, helping to build other churches, etc. (Some churches can barely afford to keep the lights on). And a small portion might go to local charities for the poor.And as far as the charitable givers, the poorest 20% of Americans donate around 3.2% of their income, while the wealthiest 20% give on average only 1.3% of their income to charity. And in times of economic disaster, those bottom earners are going to be hit with joblessness or job insecurity. In addition, the poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to support colleges and universities, arts organizations, and museums. Last year, not one of the top 50 individual charitable gifts went to a social service organization or to a charity that principally serves the poor.CONCLUSIONThis Conservative/Libertarian philosophy that a purely private nineteenth-century system of charitable and voluntary organizations did a better job providing for the common good than the twentieth-century welfare state is just wrong. It’s incorrect as a matter of history by ignoring the complex interaction between public and private social insurance that has always existed in the United States. It also completely misses why the old system collapsed and why a new one was put in its place. And it fails to understand how the Great Recession displayed the welfare state at its most necessary and how a voluntary system would have failed under the same circumstances.Ultimately, I think it boils down to Libertarian ‘magical thinking’. They don’t want to pay taxes for comprehensive social welfare programs that don’t benefit them.**While answering an excellent question in the comments section, I came across this statistic about the SNAP (food stamps) program that is very relevant to this conversation. In 2017, “93% of SNAP spending went directly to benefits that households used to purchase food, and 6.5% went to state administrative costs, including eligibility determinations, employment and training and nutrition education for SNAP households, and anti-fraud activities”. 93 Percent of Federal SNAP Spending Is for Food I think this makes for an excellent argument for why government welfare programs are more efficient than private charities.**And, I just want to add a disclaimer. I’m not an expert in this field or a historian — I’m just someone that is intellectually curious and occasionally finds the time to research issues of interest. I gathered all of this information a couple of years ago for my sister, who had posed this question to me and is relatively open-minded. If this was a term paper, I would be failed for plagiarizing a lot of great writers and researchers since parts of it are simply copy/pasted from their articles. I took care to make sure that the sources and the history are accurate, but I didn’t bother to document my resources. I will add citations for the CURRENT REALITIES section as soon as I can. Thanks for reading!

I was born in California in early 2001.9/11 was the final straw that caused my parents to move back to Illinois to be closer to family.They took a train, of course. They spent nearly four days on a train with my cranky infant self.We all lived in my grandparents’ house for a few months. Then, sometime during my second year, my parents bought a house.The house we currently live in.My entire life, as far as I can remember, has been spent in Illinois. I grew up here. I’ve had every one of my birthdays here. I went to preschool, elementary school, and junior high here. This spring, I’m going to graduate from the same high school my mom went to when she was a kid and lived here.I learned about 9/11 in my history and social studies classes here.I’ve read stories from survivors and people reflecting on how their lives and the country changed. I’ve seen the footage on TV and the internet, and I’ve taken many moments of silence to remember the victims of this horrible, horrible tragedy.It was horrible. I know that. I know what happened, four planes two towers thousands dead. I can make myself feel confused and angry and scared like everyone must have felt after the attacks. That’s empathy, and I really do feel it.But I don’t remember any of it for myself.I don’t know what it was like to wake up on September 12, 2001 and have to go to work or school.I don’t remember a time when we didn’t have to stand in a security line at the airport, or when we weren’t at war in the Middle East.I don’t know what went through my parents’ heads, who had to watch it all unfold on the television screen, while they were learning how to be parents for the first time, while little baby me sat there innocent and oblivious, while they were living in this new and unpredictable world oh so far from home…My perception of 9/11 is that it is a tragic historical event I wasn’t around to witness and remember, but has affected my life in more ways than I can possibly imagine.It’s hard to know what to think about that.

As a parent of a singleton, I would never have been able to teach him to share, that the world does not revolve around him, to take turns, if he had just been home with me all day. As an introvert, I couldn’t have given my extroverted child the rich social life he craves without daycare.And maybe I could have come up with the seemingly endless supply of craft activities and nature walks and songs and games and interesting new toys and tummy time and circle time, but… I know me, and it’s not likely.And look, it was hard at first, because when I first started to send him, all I could think was, “How could anyone take care of my baby as well as me?” And the truth is, he thrived.And so did I- I got to get work done without interruption, think complete thoughts about grownup topics, run errands, and rest my mind from the constant churn of childcare.I’m not saying it’s important for every child to be in daycare full time- that depends on the family and the budget and the quality of the daycare available. I’m saying that childrearing is INTENSE and has pretty much never, in human history, been widely practiced as a solo activity where one parent is home all day without other adults around. There’s a reason for that.