Ingenuity, pluck and luck to make it on their own. The famous rags-to-riches and

poverty-to-power stories had and have real- life parallels. But there are also the many

who didn't succeed in America. There were those who, working long hours in

factories or "sweatshops," were too tired to educate themselves when the day was

done. There were also those who couldn't move to where the grass was greener

because they were kept where the cotton grew.

Social welfare in the United States has always been torn between the concepts

of the independent, self-reliant individual and the interdependent, caring community.

Generous to other nations, Americans have been much less charitable at home. They

have often appeared to be more compassionate towards victims of earthquakes,

drought and famine than towards people in need in their own land. There seems to be

some truth in the observation that Americans very often are too proud to ask for help

and welfare. Education and technical skills have long since replaced the axe and the

hunting rifle. But some Americans still feel that people who can't find some kind of

work somewhere deserve in part what they get or don't get.

The welfare situation improved greatly through the social welfare legislation of

Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s. Today, of course, there are many federal,

state and local programs that help the unemployed, shelter and feed the homeless, and

care for the sick. Local community institutions, churches, charitable groups, and vol-

untary service organizations also play a large part. There is no single welfare system,

but rather a mosaic of measures created to help those in need.

If someone loses his or her job, for example, there may be a number of benefits

he/she is entitled to, ranging from full pay up to a certain period, reduced percentages

thereafter, state unemployment compensation, eligibility for retraining, pension plan,

and payments from a company-sponsored or private unemployment insurance. Health

costs may also be covered by union contract with the management. In case of long-

term unemployment, federal funds can be claimed.

The federal government sets nationwide standards for the minimum hourly

wage level, or the official poverty level (see Chapter II). It finances and organizes

national programs such as Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(AFDC), the Food Stamps program, Unemployment Insurance and Workmen's

Compensation, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, and Medicaid. These

different programs help alleviate financial problems for the elderly and/or those who

39

cannot work or afford proper nutrition and health care. In 1986, over $450

billion was spent by the federal government on social welfare.

Although programs and amounts of support vary greatly among the states and

depend on the individual social and economic situation of the recipient, the following

figures give some rough idea of the nature of these payments. For example, the

average AFDC payment per family (more than 11 million individuals) in 1984 was

$320 a month. The average monthly payment to Social Security Retirement recipients

(some 30 million individuals in 1984) was $417 per month. Nearly 4 million disabled

workers received $400 a month under the Social Security Disability Insurance

program. Some 2 million unemployed workers received $480 a month for 26 weeks

(with an additional thirteen weeks during recessions). The medical costs for some 20

million individuals were covered by Medicaid in 1984. And more than 20 million

people received food stamps with an average value of $46 a month. These figures, of

course, are only averages and give only a very general impression of the nature and

extent of state and federal programs and payments to those in need.

There are, however, astonishing differences in the degree to which states

provide welfare support for their citizens. Counting state and local funds only, the

state of New York spends about $385 a year for each one of its citizens on its poor,

while Arizona only spends $68, and Florida $78 per capita of their populations.

Obviously if one is poor or sick, it is better to be in New York than in Arizona.

Likewise, although the states should be spending an equal amount of money when

given federal funds (federal grants often require matching funds from states and local

communities), each state's welfare department assesses its own citizens' needs. As a

result, in the AFDC program, designed to benefit children being raised in single-

parent families, Alaska pro-des over six times as much assistance (in 1986, an.

average of $730 per month to a parent with two children) as does Alabama (only $118

per family. Some states provide a lot of help, and others, giving very little, seem to

hope that their poor will go elsewhere.

Since the 1970s, a number of states have started so-called "workfare" (work +

welfare) programs which require welfare recipients to work or to participate in job

training programs. In about half of the states, programs are in effect which try to place

welfare recipients in public-service jobs. Families with preschool children are

exempted from work requirements. By providing remedial education, vocational

training, and child care, state governments want to encourage welfare recipients,

especially families receiving AFDC, to get jobs with decent wages and prospects for

long-term employment. Some of the states' work-fare programs have met with good

success. In Massachusetts, for example, 20,000 welfare recipients were placed in jobs

within two years. California's new welfare-reform law provides for up to two years of

training for unfilled jobs to welfare recipients, and free child care. Other states have

started similar efforts to help people get off welfare and into permanent jobs.

By law, health care is available to those without any money or insurance. States,

counties, and cities all run or support hospitals, mental institutions retirement homes

and shelters for the homeless. Again, the quality of care varies with the state, county,

and community. Some spend a great deal, others the bare minimum. Universities and

similar institutions also often support and staff free health and dental clinics. Most

40

large universities sponsor free legal aid clinics that provide legal assistance and

advice for a token fee.

What makes the U.S. different from many other countries is the degree to which

payments for health, retirement, and even housing come from private sources.

Workers in industry and white-collar employees expect health insurance agreements

for them and their families, benefits, and pensions as part of their contracts.

Companies and employers often pay a large part of these benefits. Many unions offer

unemployment benefits to their members, supplementing governmental sources. Some

unions also have their own retirement plans and several even own and man age

retirement communities. When employees strike, therefore, they often ask for "fringe"

benefits, better retirement payments, better or fuller medical care, and so on.

Similarly, when an individual is considering working for a business or even a city or

state government, or changing jobs, some of the most important considerations are, for

example, retirement benefits, family health and dental plans, or life insurance. In

many cases the benefits Americans receive from such sources exceed those from the

governmental programs available to everybody.

Still, there are many individuals who have never worked, or have never been

able to, or who have remained unemployed for long periods. These people are forced

to rely on the basic governmental programs and no one who has to do so can live

comfortably. Yet, the two images remain, and those who have made it sometimes

find it difficult to understand or remember the problems of those who haven't. It is

not a lack of awareness, usually; rather, it has something to do with distance and size.

New York City's run-down tenements and the "white trash" of Appalachia, for

example, are a world away from the sunny beaches of Southern California. It's a bit

like trying to convince someone who leads a pleasant life on the Cote d'Azur that the

sores of Glasgow and the poverty of Greece are his, too, because "we're all in this

together." Many hundreds of thousands of volunteers and charitable organizations in

the United States are doing their best to 90 help those in need. Most Americans

would agree, however, that a great deal more needs to be done.

*********************************************************************

*********************************************************************

ASSIGNMENTS

1. Give English definitions to the following explanations:

a) skillfulness, cleverness, imagination, inventiveness

b) more than a reasonable degree or amount

c) forcefully, strongly

d) traditional heavy industries, such as steel, iron, coal, etc.

e) person who organizes and manages a business, especially one involving

commercial risk

f) capital owned by a company and divided into shares

41

g) to come up, rise, come into view; to become obvious

h) smth which encourages one to greater activity

i) industrialist of great wealth and power

j) money provided by an insurance company or public agency, esp. in time of

sickness, old age, or unemployment

k) searching for and exposing wrongdoing and corruption

l) well-being, health; public relief for those in need

m) to need, to demand; to claim or ask for by right and authority

n) act of temporarily discharging employees; period of temporary inactivity

o) to draw or lead away, as by promises of pleasure or reward

p) negative term for poor whites as a class

2. Translate the words and word-combinations from English into Russian and

from Russian into English rapidly without any stops:

At great expense; criteria; от т ат to account for; пр зв од и т льнос ь; to quit;

с ав ь; ои е т

restrictions; wage; благ от ор т льнос ь; мас е , р ме ле к requirement;

в и е т т р е с нни ;

“ fringe” benefits; ср

т ахов ани е; pluck; “ sweatshops”; жалос ли в ый,

т

с т ад ат льный; eligibility; обле ч ь, с ч ь; to exempt from; с мв оли ч с ая

ос р е г ат мяг ат и ек

плат tenements.

а;