How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

          The question this week is very general and broad but I will try to answer it the best way I can by using the U.S. government as non idealistic model

          Initially I was surprised to find through the assigned reading how American social services are less than mediocre in comparison to other industrialized and modern nations.  The reason being is that we utilize less then twenty percent of our GDP to fund programs aimed at supporting: welfare for citizens in poverty, funding public education and health care and support for Children and the elderly.  The reading goes further and describes specifically that “Comparatively,  the U.S. welfare state is small; it captures a more limited share of tax revenues and national wealth than does welfare spending in comparable advanced capitalists countries.”[1]

I was also surprised by the origin and evolution of social programs in America as well.   The first real movement to broadly support citizens was in 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed and aging Americans finally something to look forward to for security.  Previously only pensions and benefits for military staff and their families were prevalent as a social service but after the great depression President Franklin D Roosevelt found it a necessity for the government to step in and create programs and subsidies to protect people in need.   President Roosevelt was quoted saying that one third of the population was “ill –housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished”[2]  His stance on how the government should step in dynamically changed the perception of governmental involvement in social welfare programs. 

Lastly I found how the current movement for national healthcare was created, augmented and finally passed during the first term of President Barrack Obama.  While I do find the value in social welfare programs based on the fact that I was a recipient of said programs as a child, I find that the abuse of such programs and subsidies makes them almost more of a burden then a blessing.  Furthermore I find that the effectiveness of social programs abroad is based on their regulation of services distributed to citizens only and not for non citizen immigrants.  It almost balances out the high percentage of taxes on income they pay in Europe when they know their countrymen and themselves are reaping the benefits of working.

How would immigration reform change the funding for social services in America?

Would changing the tax liability of individuals based on income make a difference for the funding of social welfare programs?

Is applying a tiered tax liability system fair for those who make more then average?  Is it punishment for achievement and success?

---

[1]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011