Seek the development history of American welfare system! ! The development of the Welfare State

the modern American social welfare security system has gone through 7 years, which is rooted in the modern American economic mechanism and has become an indispensable and important factor affecting the modernization process of the United States. On the one hand, it plays the role of protector for the development of American social productive forces, safety valve for stabilizing American social needs, and regulator for the adjustment of relations between various classes and interest groups in the United States. On the other hand, the disadvantages accumulated in the operation of this system are increasingly exposed. It includes both the old problems brought about by the continuous expansion of social security by the Democratic governments such as Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, and the new problems caused by the contraction of social welfare security policies by Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and the party government.

Generally speaking, the promulgation of the Social Security Law on August 14th, 1935 laid the foundation for the modern welfare security system in the United States. The quarter century from Truman administration to Johnson administration is the period of continuation and perfection of Roosevelt's welfare security policy, and the quarter century from Nixon administration to Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton administration is the period of adjustment of American social welfare security policy. Since 197s, the adjustment has embodied a policy model that is not similar to that of Roosevelt's New Deal. Although it has inherited the basic spirit of the New Deal to strengthen the federal government's intervention in economic affairs and socialize welfare security, it has focused on correcting the policy shortcomings since the New Deal, and under the new conditions, it has emphasized the role of the state and local governments and restricted the excessive intervention of the federal government in welfare and other aspects. The problem to be solved by the Clinton administration is not to patronize the forgotten underclass, but to properly take care of the underclass on the premise of appeasing the middle class, and to solve the problems of excessive expenses, excessive management and little effect under the role of the safety valve.

during the Clinton administration, it sought reform in the cracks, trying to alleviate the monopoly of American medical interest groups, the aging of the social population and the substantial increase in medical expenses caused by the modernization of medical means, and implemented the reform of the medical insurance system, but failed to do so; However, in the reform of family welfare security, the welfare reform bill that restricts receiving federal welfare payments was finally passed. It ended the federal government's unlimited welfare subsidies to the poor since 1935, and stipulated that most poor families should not enjoy welfare relief subsidies for more than five years; Adults who have the ability to work must work within two years of receiving welfare benefits; The food stamp subsidy for the poor is clearly limited, and it is stipulated that those who have the ability to work and do not raise children can only receive food stamp subsidies within three years; For new immigrants, they can't get food stamps or disability benefits in the first five years.

Due to the interlacing and accumulation of problems in the implementation of social security policies with different characteristics by successive American governments, there has been a more difficult dilemma since the 199s. This situation is mainly manifested in three major crises: first, the rising medical expenses have aggravated the financial crisis caused by the social welfare security deficit; Second, some improper guarantees of social welfare aggravate the crisis of maintaining family relations; Third, the development of aging trend leads to the payment crisis of social welfare old-age pension security.

according to the sign that the elderly over 65 account for 7% of the total population, the United States accounted for 12.3% in 199 and is expected to account for 2.7% in 225. In 2, the ratio of adults aged 2-64 to elderly people over 65 in the United States was about 4.5: 1, and it is predicted that it may reach 3:1 by 225, which will result in fewer taxpayers and more beneficiaries, which not only urges the increase of insurance tax, but also lights up the red light of financial security. The development of aging has not only brought about the increase in the cost of supporting the elderly and the increase in the material burden of some people of working age, but also brought about a wide impact on social and economic development and people's lives. The aging of the labor force population leads to the relative weakening of mobility, the relative reduction of social labor resources and the relative reduction of labor efficiency adaptability, especially the reduction of the ability to accept new technologies, which increases the risk of unemployment. The increase of population burden coefficient leads to the decrease of saving ability. The old people's living habits and family hobbies are conservative, and the consumption structure is relatively stable, which will also lead to the reduction of diversified consumption needs and major changes in the social and economic structure. The rapid increase of the aging population in the United States is undoubtedly a serious challenge for policy makers, not to mention the fact that the aging interest groups have a greater say in who is elected president and what the new government formulates on aging policies than before.

In order to alleviate the impact of aging, the government has passed laws to gradually and appropriately extend the legal retirement age. In 22, it was 66 years old, and in 28, it was 67 years old. However, this does not change the basic situation of the social security expenditure crisis. According to estimates, from the end of World War II to the 196s, nearly 8 million people were born during the "baby boom" period in the United States, which was the highest income group in the United States and also the largest contributor to social security expenditure. As these "baby boomers" are about to join the ranks of "white-haired boomers" and begin to retire in large numbers, it is bound to greatly reduce social insurance funds and substantially increase welfare expenditures. According to the current social security system, the "pay-as-you-go" system is implemented. Employers and employees each pay 6.2% (employee's salary) of social security tax to pay retirees' pension, disability pension and orphans' pension, which is collectively referred to as OASDI. By 218, this part of social security fund will make ends meet, and it will be completely exhausted by 24s, and the crisis of confidence in social security will lead to the collapse of the social security system. Moreover, since 197s, the increasing social security expenditure has become a huge burden for American companies, which has weakened their global competitiveness and affected their opportunities to create new jobs.

during the first term, George W. Bush's administration devoted itself to international and domestic counter-terrorism, and made no major improvement measures to reform the welfare dilemma, so it will face greater pressure to solve the social security dilemma in the second term. If increasing taxes to make up for the shortage of social insurance funds, it will inevitably be opposed by current employees, while reducing pension expenses will inevitably cause strong dissatisfaction among retirees. Solving the problem of social security expenditure is an important key to the continuation and development of American social security mechanism. Since winning re-election last year, President George W. Bush has repeatedly stressed the need to substantially reform American social security and put the focus of reform on alleviating the problem of social security expenditure. This not only avoids the similarity with previous American presidents' social security policies, but also highlights the importance attached to the key issues of social security reform, and his intention to make "political achievements" will leave a strong mark in the history of American social welfare reform.

President George W. Bush, who is adventurous and ambitious, has repeatedly said that he will reform the current social security system in the United States with a more "market-oriented" vision. It is advocated that social security beneficiaries use part of the social security tax paid by companies and individuals to establish personal investment accounts and invest in the securities market, and be responsible for their own profits and losses. The current social welfare of retirees is not guaranteed, and the government's burden on pension is gradually reduced, and more is borne by the private sector. In fact, this policy inherits Reagan's idea of storing wealth for the people to increase and expand private investment and consumption and stimulate economic growth. The Bush administration expects that the proposed reform plan will be voted into law before the summer of this year, and the 2% social security tax paid by employees will be transferred to the "personal investment fund account" controlled by individuals. The remaining 4.2% originally paid and the social security tax paid by the employer are still used to pay social security funds according to the original channels. However, for this reason, the funds required by the US government to pay for social security transformation are expected to be as high as 2 trillion US dollars, which will inevitably increase the government's huge fiscal deficit burden. Moreover, putting a part of the social security fund into the capital market to increase its value itself carries considerable risks, which may not only increase the capital, but also shrink it. For a United States with an economic cycle, there are both the joy of economic prosperity and the suffering of economic recession. It is really hard to predict whether the reform will succeed or fail. For President Bush, this reform is like a political gamble, but the bet is the living security fund for tens of millions of elderly people in the United States, and the pension fund is not good.

President George W. Bush's conservative officials in the White House and seats in the Senate and House of Representatives have advantages in his second term, but it is not easy to smoothly implement his market-oriented and privatized social welfare reform plan. It is clear to people that the promises made during the election campaign, the high-profile swearing-in and the policy fulfillment are not the same thing. In particular, the long-term accumulation of social security reform has brought about a long history, which concerns the vital interests of nearly 3 million Americans. It involves social and economic development and sustainable development, social and political stability, progress and development, the interaction between interest groups of taxpayers from all walks of life and income segments, and a very complex systematic project that affects each other in the past, present and future. We must pay attention to the historical review of its policies, the contradictions in various aspects when it is implemented, and its forward-looking influence. We should not only pay attention to the situation of the United States during the period of economic crisis and low economic development, but also study its countermeasures during the period of economic expansion; It is necessary to make full use of the favorable conditions of the national treasury surplus and consider the difficult situation of the fiscal deficit; We should not only examine the measures taken by the United States during the baby boom and adult development, but also consider the problems arising from the "baby boom" to the "silver hair wave". In addition, it is also related to the interest base of the two major political parties in the United States. We can imagine the dilemma of President Bush's social security reform from the common problems encountered by successive American presidents when they introduced their social security policies.

First of all, the welfare reform policy of George W. Bush's government will be strongly questioned by Democrats and fiercely disputed by various interest groups, which will affect the mid-term election in 26 to a considerable extent, which is crucial for the smooth implementation of the second term policy of George W. Bush's government and the general election in 28. To a great extent, welfare reform is a political contest, not just the feasibility consideration of social security itself.

Secondly, as mentioned above, this reform involves the overall situation of the social security system, and it is extremely uncertain and risky. Even if it is reluctantly passed from the political level, it is still unknown whether it can be inherited by its successor president. People have not forgotten that the Johnson administration's "great society" expanded welfare reform policy 4 years ago was abandoned by the new President Nixon because he wanted both artillery and butter, which is a lesson from the past.