This transfer of funds increased greatly during the period from 1950 to 1980, but even increased expenditures did not deliver the goals intended.
Ellwood (1988) finds essentially that the goals and the methods undertaken are the same as Murray indicates, but he considers the issue more in terms of the effect on the American family specifically. He also notes that everyone hates the welfare system as it has developed. Defenders of the system say it is misunderstood and that critics are simply being selfish, but Ellwood feels that many critics have valid complaints. He in fact cites Murray as one who would like to help the poor but who feels that reforms are needed. Ellwood finds the complaints to have a much more fundamental basis:
Welfare is a flawed method of helping people who are poor and disadvantaged. Welfare brings some of our most precious values--involving autonomy, responsibility, work, family, community, and compassion--into conflict. We want to help those who are not making it but, in so doing, we seem to cheapen the efforts of those whoa re struggling hard just to bet by (Ellwood, 1988, 6).
Ellwood asks the essential question--should welfare be reformed or replaced? He notes that the country has gone through several attempts at welfare reform, or at least discussions of welfare reform with an eye to making changes if a good program can be developed. The conservatives have called for the elimination of welfare, and Ellwood rightly notes that no one expects this call to be heeded. What is being discussed is the imposition of new obligations and responsibilities on recipients, with the government in turn providing training or jobs. Ellwood considers these issues and notes that while they would help, they would not have more than a modest effect on the caseload and on the ability of the disadvantaged to provide for themselves. Ellwood points out the reason for this--none of these changes would address the ...