Sarah Colegrove POS 104 3/26/2012 Reading Response #5: Welfare In societies all over the globe, the

issue of inequality is ever-present. There are those in the society who are wealthy (or at least are relatively wealthy) and those who are starving to death. This phenomenon is incredibly widespread in the United States. A very small percentage of the population own most of the wealth in the nation while a much larger percentage of the population do not even have enough to provide for their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter let alone such things as education, child care, health insurance, and transportation. Three questions come to mind when thinking about this inequality. Why do some have less? What then should the state and local government do to provide for their citizens? What are the costs of helping others? Conservatives in the public arena would argue that the government should not do anything. These people are starving because its their own fault and we should leave them alone. They made bad choices in life and now must pay the consequences or they do not work hard and if they worked harder they would be fine. I very much disagree with this line of thought and in fact find it laughable. The reason why there is such a gap in wealth and income is because of systemic and structural issues. Not everyone is born into a situation where they have the same opportunities as the next person. Some have advantages over others just based on who their parents are. The American Dream is not possible for everyone.

State and local governments need to keep this in mind when making public policies. There needs to be more funding put into such programs as health insurance for those under or near the poverty line. WIC programs need to be extended and offer benefits to more children for a longer period of time. Public housing needs to be available to everyone under or near the poverty (regardless if they have been convicted or arrested for a crime). Affordable or subsidized child-care that is safe needs to be offered to the lower and working classes. Many more programs need to be in place so that those belonging to the lower or working class in society are able to get well-paying jobs (above minimum wage) and education so that they can support their families. While there are many who will complain about these changes and that it will drain the budget, there are some benefits that will arise (granted it will not be immediate but rather over time). The tax base will increase as those in the lower and working classes have jobs that provide them with a better income. The need for the criminal justice systems will decrease as many more people will not be pressured to commit crimes (such as drug dealing) in order to survive. Children will be raised in homes and environments that are safer as they will be able to attend safe child-care facilities rather than being home alone or in very unsafe facilities. The list of benefits that will arise goes on. State and local governments need to provide more and better programs for the lower and working classes. If they do so, there are many benefits that will come about. While these programs will be costly to start and maintain, I think that the benefits that come out of them will successfully and completely counter the costs over time. Hopefully (although unlikely) state and local governments will work together and do more for those who have less.

Sarah Colegrove POS 104 3/26/2012 Reading Response #6: State Insurance While some states, such as Arizona, have recently gotten rid of their state insurance programs, others have not. This brings to question, should Pennsylvania get rid of the state health insurance programs such as CHIP? I think that it is a foolish decision to get rid of state provided health insurance. I am someone who has grown up on either CHIP or Access (my parents income fluctuated year-toyear so which program I was on also fluctuated year-to-year). When I was in sixth grade, I had to have expedited surgery because there were stones in my gallbladder that were about to cause it to explode. If I did not have that surgery, I could have died from internal bleeding. The state provided health insurance that enabled it so that I did not die. Because I had insurance, my parents were able to take me to the doctors so that I could be examined when I first started to have pain. This insurance also enabled it so that I could go to the surgeon to be examined and later have the much needed surgery. If I was not on insurance, I probably would not have gone to the doctors until it was too late and I was dead (not because my parents did not care it was just that we had absolutely no money for anything. I remember having to search for pennies in and around the house just to have enough gas money to get groceries or go to the doctors). The CHIP and Access programs save the lives of children across the United States. Not just through surgeries or medicine like I experienced. They help to keep children in school (by

having medicine and doctors within hands reach) so that they can get an education and hopefully be able to get a job later in life so that they will not be dependent on others. They offer better life chances for these children to have the opportunity to attain or better themselves down the road. By getting rid of these programs, Pennsylvania will have a worse situation on its hands than a budget that does not balance. There will be many more sick or dying children who will not be able to get an education because they missed school because of health issues. I think that these programs are very needed for each state to have and hopefully Pennsylvania will not consider getting rid of their health insurance programs. It does make one wonder why other states got rid of their programs and wonder if they will ever bring them back. I hope so.