The social welfare system is a system of strict surveillance towards a particular group of people who require public aid. The tactics used through the social welfare program have people living under strict rules and constant surveillance by both the government and large private corporations. As mentioned by the first interviewee in John Gilliom’s Overseers of the Poor, living on welfare is “as close to a prison that I can think of.” The current government works together with other large private corporations to collect as much data and personal information from people, specifically those who are low income and live in rural areas. An example in which the government exploits this power of surveillance is through the social welfare program for public aid. Although recipients of welfare know and understand that they are giving up personal information, they have no other choice because of their need of welfare. The government uses public aid as leverage in order to get more personal data from the lower class society. Large and private corporations benefit from these tactics because it gives them a good public image. It shows that corporations are working together with the government in order to help society and fight poverty. But is it worth receiving the welfare when you are constantly being surveilled by Big Brother? What is welfare worth if you are going to be living a life that is closely related to prison?
One specific program that I want to focus on is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). WIC is a program that provides federal assistance to low-income pregnant women. In order to be eligible for WIC, applicants need to release personal data which ranges to social security, bank accounts, home addresses, names of family members, number of family members in a home, and etc. As soon as applicants become eligible for WIC, they are required to take certain classes and cooperate with all the regulations and laws that go along with WIC’s policies. In addition, WIC constantly audits the applicant’s bank accounts in order to ensure that there is no financial fraud. Lastly, WIC requires that all mothers and infants make monthly trips to the doctor’s office for a physical.
One might ask, what is the big deal? The government is aiding low-income pregnant women. I do agree that WIC does offer good public aid to low-income women however, their lifestyle changes to constant surveillance from Big Brother. Unexpected visits from social workers, auditing bank accounts, and specific purchases at the grocery story make the lifestyle very similar to that of a prison. Continuous surveillance of both the woman and the child continue for five years. According to the Food and Nutrition Service website, WIC provides service to over half of the infants born here in the United States. This gives both the government and large private corporations a good amount of surveillance power for a good majority of the population in the United States.
Sources: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/women-infants-and-children-wic
Jordan, I was glad to read your blog post on Welfare Programs. I was really intrigued by John Gilliom's "Overseers of the Poor" and by your blog post related to it, I am assuming it intrigued you also.
ReplyDeleteI had mixed feelings when I was reading the way in which the welfare bureaucracy carried out its surveillance on the poor on welfare in order to make sure they weren't cheating the system. And although the main issue with the stories of struggles indicated the intense surveillance of the welfare bureaucracy, the more I read, the more it became obvious that the level of surveillance was not the main issue, but the way in which the welfare system works. In no way does it aid the poor in creating a permanently sustainable lifestyle because a slight increase in income will threaten to take away welfare support, which still remains a huge portion of their resource. It seems to me the level of surveillance will become less of an issue when the welfare system allows low income families or individuals on welfare to increase their income through honest labor without threatening to take away welfare support until they are able to survive solely on their income.
-June Shin
In part, I understand what you're saying and in part I think it's a complete lack of vision for the bigger picture. Welfare, Food Stamps, EBT, etc is such a tiny sliver of our national budget, yes. However we live in a time of increased expenditure scrutiny, and as a byproduct of that "needs based" social programs are always on the budget chopping block, and they'll continue to get gutted and overly-monitored.
ReplyDeleteCollectively, voting constituents pressure the federal government to be more lean on it's budget and as a result these programs get more scrutiny, that is just the latent effect of scrutiny in a democracy.
So this Orwellian notion that Welfare is Big Brother is extremely hyperbolic. It's 2014, not 1984.
It sucks that the underclass are disenfranchised in their access to public aid but that's not going to change as long as the word "welfare" is a political third rail.
And lastly, the notion that releasing your personal information is somehow wrong needs to be readdressed. We all have to release just as much information to get into Berkeley, or get financial aid.
I have yet to hear a persuasive argument of why we would allow for people applying for Welfare to provide less information than people applying to Berkeley.
Of course the government needs to know your SSN, of course they need your address, of course they need bank information.
Is this 1984? Hardly.
Welfare stands as one of the most politically unpopular programs since... ever. Yet we expect (in our inward-facing classroom setting) that this terribly scrutinized program can freely grant public funds -in an era where government expenditure scrutiny is at it's highest- to people without at least knowing: who they are and how much money they make.
-I look forward to your response.
Interesting post Jordan! However, I am struggling with the suggestion that welfare is comparable to prison. As with any government program, the benefits issued from such programs need to be monitored. The requirements expected seem lax considering that welfare is in place to provide financial assistance and benefits that otherwise are expected to be achieved independently. My thought, is that people who truly need help, should not be offended or "imprisoned," by the requirements expected. These requirements are simple checks and balances that if were not in place, may easily be abused. I spoke with a fellow classmate regarding welfare last week, a question arose about scholarships and school loans. Similar to welfare, the requirements are quite comparable. The question then becomes: why do we accept these requirements and fight the other?
ReplyDeleteBest,
Sarah Hickman
WIC is but one of many welfare programs that have significantly increased in size and number within the last six years. Since 2008, an increase of 18 million people, for a total of 46 million people, receive food stamps. There has also been a 10 million person increase in welfare recipients to a total of 107 million.* That’s more than one-third of the US population! The worst is yet to come. The Affordable Care Act gives the government incredible power over ALL Americans. Now, the government has access to the most personal and heretofore the most guarded information one possesses – personal health. Soon, the government’s tentacles will reach into every aspect of our lives, because, after all, everything can be related to health care: what we eat, how we exercise, where we live, what we drive, who we marry, how we raise our kids, and so on. There is no aspect of life that ultimately can’t be regulated under the guise of health care. Could it be that Orwell was just off by three decades?
ReplyDelete* http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/08/13/president-obamas-smashing-success-story-greatly-increasing-the-power-of-government/
JESSE RYCKMAN
Jordan, You clearly identify a program -- WIC -- that is reflective of Gilliom's concerns about the turn in social services in the direction of concentrated surveillance. Is this a story of Big Brother or one in which concepts from Gilliom and Monahan offer stronger frames for understanding? For example, take a look at how they articulate the "coercive" quality of surveillance and their replacement of surveillance as an assemblage of practices instead of a reflection of Big Brother. Best.
ReplyDeleteIn order for people to receive the benefits of these welfare programs from the government, they have the burden of proof to provide personal information to prove that they do need assistance. Therefore, I believe it is a mix of both coercion and choice, coercion because the government requires information and choice because the citizens have the choice of applying to receive benefit or not. However, I don't necessarily view the government acting as a strict surveillance form toward the marginalized group of people because from their perspective, they must act in scrutiny to make sure the money is actually going to the people who need them. If there is one criticism against the welfare programs, it is that the criteria to receive the benefits may be really stringent, causing people to attempt to cheat their way into the system to receive the benefits. However, I believe that it is unfortunately necessary for the welfare programs to actively work to inspect people's background to see if certain families need the assistance to make sure that the money is being distributed to the right people.
ReplyDeleteBrenda Lee
I think this is an interesting post for a few reasons. While I realize you wanted to highlight a specific example of welfare hardships, the post makes it sound as if the welfare system is unnecessarily harassing pregnant women specifically. In reality all types of assistance programs collect this same data in the same sort of manner, and this information is necessary in order to ensure that no one is cheating the system. I'm sure any tax paying citizen can appreciate that the government isn't just giving money away to anyone. What I do not like about the welfare system, however, is the fact that it does not allow a family to strengthen itself and improve its conditions. These families are not given enough aid and have to rely on outside or unreported sources of income to make it by. They also cannot save up their money or their aid will be reduced. Would it not be more beneficial to use these great surveillance technologies to watch families as they slowly amass more wealth and are then able to remove themselves from the welfare system instead of being perpetually stuck in it? I feel like that would save the government money in the long run, and allow for less stringent surveillance policies because people would not need to commit fraud to make end's meet.
ReplyDeleteColleen Johnson, Discussion 102.
I agree with some of the other comments about the necessity of some surveillance in the welfare system. The government needs basic data like SSN and bank accounts to calculate the specific needs of the individual/family applying for welfare. Surveillance is also needed to police against cheating the system. Although many people on welfare system do not abuse the system, the government should be about to guard against fraud. Some of the women interviewed in 'Overseers of the Poor' admitted to the need for surveillance to deter cheating, and even that they themselves have cheated the system. In my opinion, the main problem with the current welfare system is not the level of security, but the inadequate aid welfare provides. Since welfare aid is not sufficient, people resort to cheating to survive, which reinforces the need for surveillance to stop fraud.
ReplyDeleteChristine Prior
Your article, in conjunction with the "Overseers of the Poor" article, introduced very interesting points regarding our current social welfare system. Social welfare is a necessary component to any nation: helping the less fortunate among us can only help us as a nation in the long run. However, though the program as currently implemented is flawed and arguably overreaching in some ways, one must consider what reasonably achievable alternatives to such a system would be. I think that the vast majority of Americans would strongly disagree with their tax dollars being spent unqualitatively. Other than surveillance, how else can the government ensure that federal/state funds are being properly disbursed? Another point to consider when creating a new social welfare program is sustainability and longevity. Whatever reforms the system undergoes, they must allow for social welfare recipients to maintain a base-level living standard and eventually enable them to no longer require government assistance.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Choi
This raises some very interesting points. The problem is fining an alternative solution to the invasive surveillance of welfare recipients. Perhaps restricting the amount of information available to the government review. Bank account information and household size seems relevant to determine the amount of resources the recipient needs. However, other information seems irrelevant and at worst, used more moral judgement on the person's lifestyle. This seems relevant in this case, as in order to receive this welfare the women have to make lifestyle changes including going to a doctor once a month. While this may be a good idea, it is the government dictating what you should or should not do in order to receive help. Most US tax payers would not be willing or happy about providing welfare free of surveillance (or providing welfare at all, but we won't get into that), but it seems reasonable to place certain restrictions in the name of protecting people's right to privacy, and preventing governmental overreach.
ReplyDelete~BriAnne Lynn
Jordan raises good points about the role of surveillance in the welfare system. Her main critique is the government's intrusion into the lives of low-income persons. The Gilliom piece shocked me due to the amount of intrusion the government has into the lives of welfare recipients; however, I do agree that this type of intrusion parallels surveillance of other government programs--such as financial aid. Perhaps if we explored the surveillance techniques used in application screening, calgrants, pell grants, etc we would be surprised about its pervasiveness.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons for deceiving in the welfare system stuck out the most for me. Most women lied about their earnings in order to survive. I would find it difficult to argue that the aid given is not beneficial, however I do believe the computerized system is problematic. The switch to a an online surveillance system does not make an adequate substitute for a social worker's assessment to provide families with necessities.
I understand the point that you are getting; however, I think the problem is not about monitoring the benefactor of these social welfare benefits. I believe the problem arises when both government and corporate conduct surveillance among these recipients to suffice their self-interests. I am working in a retail-grocery store and based on my experience I’ve seen many EBT recipients use their EBT cards to purchase cigarettes and other unnecessary items. I know that food-stamp recipients are prohibited to purchase cigarettes and other non-food items. But if they were receiving unemployment benefits, they can also purchase most of items that they want as long as the stores, that they are going to visit, accept EBT cards. I think the government are monitoring the items that these people are buying so they could report those items to the corporate and increase the sale of those items instead of monitoring them and prohibiting them from buying items for pleasure. Through these market surveillance, both parties are making profit from surveilling the consuming behavior of welfare recipients. Surveillance among welfare benefactors are actually efficient if they can actually forbid them from buying the items that these people should not be buying using the government funds. This is similar to using taxpayer funds to finance campaign expenses of politicians.
ReplyDelete-Vanessa Lei M. Escorpiso