Project Planning Paper and Talking Points about the U.S. SB 303 on Welfare
- Support for the HB 4388 should not be passed because it can be a hindrance to the government’s ability to provide social services to the parents and families who heavily rely on it. This bill basically disables them to receive government support if they fail to send their children aged below 16 to school which is something they do not have a complete control of. After all, parents do not have absolute control over their children’s mindset, behavior, and actions.
- Families and their respective members are the ones who would most likely be most affected by the implementation of this bill. We find the implementation of this bill counterproductive to the government’s main goal of providing free and or affordable social services to those who need it. This bill can be seen as an indirect form of restriction to the government’s ability to provide social services to those who need it because not all parents can really control their children’s decisions and behaviors when it comes to attending public schools. So in a nutshell, they risk not being able to receive social service coverage just because of their inability to influence their children’s education-related decisions and behaviors.
- Government organizations, departments, and agencies are being funded using taxpayer money to provide a certain type of service to the state itself or its citizens. In this case, we are talking about social services and the ability of the government organizations, departments, and agencies to provide and regulate them. When this law gets passed, the government would basically be less efficient in doing their fundamental job—to provide services for its citizens, because this bill basically adds up to the burden of the citizens—they can be ineligible to receive social benefits just because one of their children is not going to school.
- The main reason why opponents of the bill favor their positions is the fact that this bill can be an additional source of burden for parents and their respective family members who heavily rely on social services for survival. Those who apply for social service grants are often those who do not have the financial capability to send their children to school, even in a publicly funded one. Adding a requirement that would be almost impossible for certain family heads to fulfill is something that can counter the idea of providing social services to those who need them.
- As of 2014, 19.4% of the entire U.S. population is aged 0 to 14 years; 13.7% aged 15 to 24 years; 39.9% aged 25 to 64; 14.5% aged 55 to 64; and 13.9% aged 65 years and older, according to a 2014 estimate by the Central Intelligence Agency (2014) . Total dependency ratio is at 50.4%; youth dependency ratio is at 29.4%. Education expenditure is at 4% of the total GDP as of 2010 . School life expectancy from primary to tertiary education is at 17 years (16 years for males and 17 years for females) .
- The expected effect on the community would be more negative than positive because this law basically restricts the government’s ability to provide for the citizens’ social service needs and the ability of the citizens’ to be eligible for them.
- Should this bill be fully enacted into law, it would make the government organizations, departments, and agencies that have something to do with social services provisions and regulations less efficient in doing their job because a smaller number of people would benefit from the social services programs (i.e. family independence program). Ultimately, it is those families who heavily rely on government assistance who will be most affected, especially those families who have parents, guardians, or caretakers who could not really control or influence their children aged below 16 to go to school and meet all other public school attendance requirements.
- As a concerned citizen, I urge all of you to participate in movements that are aimed at dissolving this bill for the benefit of the parents who do not have complete control of their children’s behavior and so that they can continue to receive the social benefits they really need.
Being aware about the different changes that the government, through the congress and the senate, is trying to change society and the laws that govern it, is an essential part of being a citizen, especially for democratic and liberal countries, a good example of which would be the United States. As a citizen, knowing what is happening in the government, the new laws that are being implemented, and the old laws that are getting amended, should be one of the centerpieces of their attention .
The objective of this paper is to present a thorough research and project plan about one of the bills currently being processed in Michigan’s House of Representatives. Michigan is one of the busiest and populous stages in the Midwestern region of the United States. It is one of the states where a lot of bills get reviewed and passed. Recently, a proposal for the enactment of the House Bill 4388 has been passed as sponsored by representatives Tim Kelly, Pat Somerville, Joe Haveman, Kurt Heise, Joel Johnson, Earl Poleski, Jeff Farrington, Bruce Rendon, Nancy Jenkins, Anthony Forlini, Matt Lori, John Bumstead, Wayne Schmidt, Joseph Graves, Kevin Daley, Kevin Cotter, Mike Shirkey, Ray Franz, Frank Foster, and Peter MacGregor under the human services, education, existing state agencies, and services requiring financial assistance categories. For this paper the subject would be the House Bill 4388 . As early as this point, it would be important to know that the House Bill 4388 comes as an amendment to the section 57 b of the Social Welfare Act 280 of 1939, which will also be briefly discussed, as it presents the idea behind the implementation of the HB 4388 once it has already been enacted, although on a larger scale. A BLAU type of analysis would be done, which focuses on the economic, political, social, historical, and ideological factors behind and implications of the bill.
The members of the House of Representatives from Michigan have in the past year proposed the implementation of the HB 4388 to amend some sections of the Social Welfare Act. Basically, the bill’s proponents and sponsors believe that parents, guardians, and caretakers of children below 16 have the responsibility to send them to school. In a bid to improve the efficiency of the provision of public education, the government, has included being able to fulfill this responsibility to the list of requirements that parents have to complete before they can be eligible for the provisions of the social welfare act, specifically the family independence assistance program. The main issue here is that the enactment of this bill can potentially disrupt the government’s ability to provide much needed social services to those who really need it, especially for parents who do not really have full control of their children’s behaviors and decisions.
The Social Welfare Act - Act 280 of 1939 and the House Bill 4388
The Social Welfare Act (Act 280 of 1939) was an act that was ratified in 1939 in an effort of the government to secure and protect the welfare of all the citizens living in the state, the United States. Key provisions under this act include but may not be limited to general assistance, infirmary and medical care services (especially for the poor and less fortunate people), and hospitalization. Some of the key target people of this particular act are the elderlies (people under the geriatric age of the development), the permanently and partially disabled, the blind, and children who may still be dependent on their parents’ or guardians’ capability to sustain their basic human needs.
In 2013, a house bill, specifically the HB 4388, was passed to amend some of the key provisions of the Social Welfare Act of 1939. Now, even at a glance, the decision to finally actively amend such provisions totally makes sense, especially considering that more than seventy five years have already passed since the act was ratified and so despite having a good track record of being used to protect and secure the welfare of the people of the state, some of its provisions might be inapplicable to the current living situations and conditions in the country.
Specifically, the sections of the Social Welfare Act of 1939 that will be amended will be sections 57 and 57b, which were also amended in 2011 by the approval of the PA 131. So far the key provision under this Bill would be the Family Independence Program. These three provisions are practically tools that the current House of Representatives are planning to use to arrive at the vision of the bill.
Economy and Politics
In general, the populations that can be affected by this bill would be every member of the family. However, it is important to remember that the ultimate goal of the bill is to establish a new and updated set of government imposed school attendance requirements that parents, guardians, and caretakers, as defined in the latest draft of the bill, should follow and apply to their child-raising practices or risk losing benefits and even receive penalties. Basically, the amendments to the social welfare act as a result of the HB 4388 would give the government and the departments, agencies, and any other organizations affiliated with it the authorization to use the amended school attendance requirements to determine an individual (i.e. the parents, guardians, or caretakers of a child) or a family’s eligibility for the family independence program assistance.
Description of the Organizations and Agencies that would be affected by the Bill
Organizations that may get affected would include government departments and agencies that have something to do with the provision of the benefits under the family independence assistance program. Some concrete examples of organizations that will be affected would be the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, the United States Office of Health Affairs, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the and Child Protective Services, among others.
Micro Level Analysis
It is emphasized in this new bill that the government and its departments and agencies are given the legal authorization to prohibit families with at least one member who is under the age of 16 and does not meet the government’s public school attendance requirements, from benefiting from any of the provisions under the Family Independence Program Assistance. So basically, aside from the non-education-related requirements for eligibility for the Family Independence Program Assistance, all family members under the age sixteen should be able to meet the public school attendance requirements or the entire family suffers from not being able to be covered by the benefits of the family independence assistance program as specified in the Social Welfare Act. So technically, it would be the parents, the guardians, and the caretakers of the family who would most likely be affected. However, their removal from the list of eligible beneficiaries makes all the members of the family, including the dependent children and all the other dependents of the parents, guardians, or caretakers, affected.
The amendment may also potentially affect families and their respective members who heavily rely on the family independence program for assistance.
Mezzo Level Analysis
The enactment of the HB 4388 would certainly make the provision of benefits under the Social Welfare Act more restrictive and so these organizations’ should basically expect a fewer and smaller wave of beneficiaries coming to their offices and satellite locations for claims and benefits. The effect of this can be summarized into two points. Firstly, fewer and smaller waves of beneficiaries would mean that the government’s budget for social services under the family independence assistance program would be spared for those who are really qualified or in this case, those who put in some real effort to send their kids to school. However (our second point), this would make the lower those organizations’ ability to provide social services, which is also the same reason why they are being funded.
Macro Level Analysis
On a macro-scale, the enactment of the HB 4388 would not only affect the government departments and agencies that have something to do with the provision of the family independence assistance program but also the families that heavily rely on them. For so many years, families have enjoyed a practically restriction-free process of applying for beneficiary eligibility. This means that despite having a family member aged below 16 whom the parents failed to send to school, the entire family would still be able to enjoy the benefits provided under the family independence assistance program, which is by the way funded by the federal government using taxpayers’ money. This can indeed be a promising strategy to improve the ability of the government, through their various agencies and departments, to use taxpayers’ money to cover social services grants which well includes the Family Independence Assistance program. From a financial perspective, the affect may be positive but from a macro level of perspective, the effects may not be so good for the families that heavily rely on government social service grants. Another issue here would be the ability of the parents to control the behavior of their child. Basically, the HB 4388 absolutely requires the parents to be able to control their children’s behavior or suffer the consequences of being ineligible to receive social services under the family independence assistance program. Add up the number of families that might get affected and the effects could be catastrophic. It should be known that the fundamental aim of senate and congress bills is to impose a positive effect on societal change. In the case of the implementation of the HB 4388, however, it appears that the effects on the communities is far more negative than positive, although we cannot dismiss the fact that this can be a source of relief for the government’s social services funds as the additional and or updated public school attendance requirements would most likely equate to a smaller number of beneficiaries going to government offices asking for coverage on their social services.
CIA. (2014). U.S. World Factbook. CIA.
Klein, J., & Rice, C. (2012). US Education Reform and Social Security. Stanford University Press.
Robb, J., Sibley, M., Pelham, W., & Foster, E. (2011). The Estimated Annual Cost of the U.S. Educational System. School Mental Health, 169.
Social Security Administration. (2012). Social Security Programs Throughout the World: The Americas 2011. Wiley and Sons.
The Michigan Legislature. (2014). House Bill 4388 2013. The Michigan Legislature.