Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Welfare Reform Working

Ron Haskins:

Ten years ago next month, a bipartisan majority in Congress and a Democratic president launched America's welfare policy in a new and largely uncharted direction.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the predictions of doom hurled against the Republican welfare reform bill signed by President Clinton on Aug. 22, 1996. Mr. Clinton had previously vetoed two versions of welfare reform when, with skill, daring and persistence, Republicans in the House and Senate pushed it through Congress a third time and put it again on the president's desk. In an act of remarkable political courage, Mr. Clinton defied senior members of his own party and most of the American left and signed the radical bill into law.

The left, led by senior Democrats in Congress, the editorial pages of many of the nation's leading newspapers, the Catholic bishops, child advocates in Washington and the professoriate, had assaulted the bill in terms that are rare, even by today's coarse standards. Democrats speaking on the floor of the House labeled the bill "harsh," "cruel" and "mean-spirited." They claimed that it "attacked," "punished" and "lashed out at" children. Columnist Bob Herbert said the bill conducted a "jihad" against the poor, made "war on kids" and "deliberately inflict[ed] harm" on children and the poor. Sen. Frank Lautenberg said poor children would be reduced to "begging for money, begging for food, and . . . engaging in prostitution."

Many Democrats and pundits shouted that the bill would throw a million children into poverty. Marion Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund said that no one who believed in the Judeo-Christian tradition could support the bill. Even God, it seemed, opposed the evil Republican bill.

The major reform that evoked this onslaught was the proposal to end the entitlement, or legal guarantee of cash benefits, promised by the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Kate O'Beirne, now of National Review, perfectly captured the philosophy of entitlement in 1995 testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, saying that the nation's welfare system operated on the principle of "spend more, demand less." Republicans wanted to demand more by breaking the entitlement and making the cash contingent on serious attempts to find work and achieve self-support.

After three decades of failed federal "work" programs, Republicans had spent years behind the scenes--under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, Clay Shaw, Rick Santorum, Jim Talent and others--developing ideas about how to encourage, cajole or, when necessary, force mothers on welfare to work. Specifically, Republicans proposed to end the entitlement to cash, impose a five-year time limit on benefits, require mothers to prepare for and search for work or have their cash benefit reduced or terminated, and require states to place half their welfare caseload in programs that lead to employment. . . .

In the decade that has passed since the 1996 reforms, the welfare rolls have plummeted by nearly 60%, the first sustained decline since the program was enacted in 1935. Equally important, the employment of single mothers heading families reached the highest level ever. As a group, mothers heading families with incomes of less than about $21,000 per year increased their earnings every year between 1994 and 2000 while simultaneously receiving less money from welfare payments. In inflation-adjusted dollars, they were about 25% better off in 2000 than in 1994, despite the fall in their welfare income.


You mean personal responsibility actually works? Holding people responsible for their own actions isn't actually cruel but rather serves as a motivator to get them back to helping themselves once again?

This is going to knock some liberals I know for a loop.

Read the whole thing.

Comments

Avatar for robert108

For me, the most interesting thing here is that the cost of welfare is decreasing; normally, that would be a sign of success, just as the formerly increasing costs of welfare are a sign of failure.  In the leftie mind, though, that process is reversed.  Having increasing cost and enrollment in an entitlement program is taken as a sign of success, as more and more people become dependent on govt and therefore, lose their ability to be independent.  Conversely, the lefties consider the drop in welfare spending to be a sign of failure, as more people regain their independence.  I can’t think of a better way to express what the left really stands for: total dependence on govt and a loss of individual independence.

robert108 on July 30, 2006 at 09:34 pm
Avatar for bullwinkle

Lowered welfare rolls and spending are a failure for the left. As people become more independent (responsible) they are less likely to vote for liberals. Self-reliant people don’t feel compelled to vote politicians into office who only want to keep others dependent like they once were. It’s a sink or swim world and if you are on welfare you have already sunk. Like I said the other day, if poverty itself isn’t incentive enough to get off your ass and change your circumstances then poverty isn’t all that bad. If you listen to liberals they are always claiming that people can’t survive without help, it’s been repeated so often that the people stop believing they can. Liberals want to keep people on welfare and keep them voting liberals into office. I’ve always advocated helping those who cannot take care of themselves and kicking those who can but won’t take care of themselves squarely in their lazy asses. They are robbing the people who need help. Our truly needy could live well if they didn’t have the truly worthless siphoning off their money.

bullwinkle on July 30, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

Most, if not all, federal program ‘no teaching people how to fish’ should be eliminated or at least closely revisited.

aNONOMISLY on July 31, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Avatar for jeneile

As a lefty, I disagree with you both.  I feel that decreased welfare is a sign of success and increased independence.  When people know that they are not going to get a handout, it makes them more responsible for their own actions, and perhaps gives them more drive to try to improve their situatution.

jeneile on July 31, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Avatar for robert108

jeniele: Come to the light!  You are way too smart to be a leftie, if you know even this one thing.

robert108 on July 31, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Avatar for jeneile

robert108, you’re not the only one who tells me that I’m a closet republican....  I’m on the fence some of the time.  I think the next election will make or break it for me..... wink

jeneile on July 31, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Avatar for jeneile

One thing that I would really like to see is more money being put towards higher education grants/ scholarships rather than social welfare programs.  Tuition increases every year put college out of reach for some.

jeneile on July 31, 2006 at 01:19 pm
Avatar for robert108

jeniele: Whoa!  I just complimented you for having too much common sense to be a leftie.  Believe it or not, there are many gradations between being a leftie and being a Republican, much less a Conservative.

robert108 on July 31, 2006 at 01:20 pm
Avatar for robert108

jeniele: There are some that would say all the taxpayer money being funneled into the child indoctrination system(oops! I meant the public education system) is responsible for the huge increases in the cost.  I am one of them.  Whenever you separate the consumer from the payer in a system, and allow money to be freely confiscated to fund the endeavor, you get rising costs and diminishing supply.  That is exactly what is happening.  You also get a system which is topheavy in administration costs.

robert108 on July 31, 2006 at 01:24 pm

jeneile said, One thing that I would really like to see is more money being put towards higher education grants/ scholarships...

What do you think is going to happen to the price when you make it so that most people don’t have to pay? I’ll tell you what is going to happen - it’s going to go up.

likwidshoe on July 31, 2006 at 01:27 pm
Avatar for Bat One

Jeneile,

Please explain how this,

I would really like to see is more money being put towards higher education grants/ scholarships rather than social welfare programs.

Relates to this,

When people know that they are not going to get a handout, it makes them more responsible for their own actions, and perhaps gives them more drive to try to improve their situatution.

There appears to be a serious inconsistency between your two statements… statements made within 35 minutes of each other.

Bat One on July 31, 2006 at 01:29 pm
Avatar for robert108

Bat: Probably one of those “social liberal”, “fiscal conservative” folks.(As if!) It’s an illusion sustainable only by compartmentalized thinking.

How does the fiscal conservative countenance the irresponsible spending of the social liberal?

robert108 on July 31, 2006 at 01:35 pm
Avatar for jpe

Bat: an opportunity for an education isn’t a handout.  The student still needs to work to make the education worthwhile, and then to make money after school.

jpe on July 31, 2006 at 04:16 pm

Bat: an opportunity for an education isn’t a handout.

A grant isn’t a handout?

The student still needs to work to make the education worthwhile, and then to make money after school.

Those students who accept these handouts make it more expensive for people like me. Do you care about my opportunity for education?

likwidshoe on July 31, 2006 at 04:27 pm
Avatar for robert108

jpe: Just think of the incentive to make use of your education if you paid for it yourself.  Wow!

robert108 on July 31, 2006 at 04:58 pm
Avatar for Bat One

Bat: an opportunity for an education isn’t a handout.

Nonsense!!  Anytime one is given something for which others are required to pay, that’s a handout.  It might be argued, though not very successfully, that a scholarship would not be considered a handout, but it is still true that one person is being given something for which another must pay.

Worse yet, from a liberal point of view, in the case of a scholarship, the argument is that the recipient actually earned the awarded handout, on merit, a downright dangerous concept to those on the left.

Bat One on July 31, 2006 at 05:05 pm
Avatar for LoadTheMule

Probably one of those “social liberal”, “fiscal conservative” folks.(As if!) It’s an illusion sustainable only by compartmentalized thinking.

How incredibly condescending of you, robert108.  You implication is that being fiscally conservative negates any/all social spending.  What a crock.

How does the fiscal conservative countenance the irresponsible spending of the social liberal?

The catchword here being irresponsible.  Is all social spending irresponsible, or just that with which you don’t personally agree?

Regards…

LoadTheMule on August 1, 2006 at 05:01 am
Avatar for jeneile

Bat One, providing assistance to those (assistance does NOT mean a free ride) who cannot afford to go to college is an investment.  Those students will work hard and then graduate, get a higher paying job, and then pay higher taxes.  I recieved some assistance for college because I chose to go into the healthcare field.  As a result, I now make almost $70,000 between my two jobs and pay quite a bit in taxes because I have no dependants.  So it obviously paid off to assist me through collge.

jeneile on August 3, 2006 at 07:40 am
Avatar for jeneile

By the way, my scholarship came from my tribe which resulted from casino net profit.  No that it makes a hige difference.  I still ended up having to take out more than $15,000 in loans if that makes you feel any better.

jeneile on August 3, 2006 at 07:44 am
Avatar for WOOF

I take no pleasure in your debt or mine for that matter.

WOOF on August 3, 2006 at 07:47 am
Avatar for The Whistler

By the way, my scholarship came from my tribe which resulted from casino net profit. No that it makes a hige difference. I still ended up having to take out more than $15,000 in loans if that makes you feel any better.

Didn’t you go to school for 8 years.  $15k over 8 years is not that bad.

I look at “private” scholarships a bit different.  If a person has to compete for said scholership and keep up your grades it probably doesn’t distort the cost structure of the Universities.  The federal government providing more and more money has not helped the students.

The Whistler on August 3, 2006 at 07:55 am
Avatar for robert108

jeniele:  “Those students will work hard and then graduate, get a higher paying job, and then pay higher taxes.”

At least you admit that being an achiever is beneficial to society, even if it’s just to pay the taxes that pay for the leftie social engineering.  Actually, achievers do a whole lot more than that to benefit society.  You’re on the right track; 70K isn’t bad for a single person.

robert108 on August 3, 2006 at 08:07 am
Avatar for jeneile

robert108, no, my wages are not bad, but I work many hours.  Trying to get ahead is hard.  I don’t know a lot about the types of grants and scholarships available, but I do know that when I was looking for them, they were quite competetive and for most of them you had to maintain a fairly high GPA.  I feel that if students are willing to work hard and then graduate, they will find higher paying jobs and pay more taxes.  That is my thinking anyway.

jeneile on August 3, 2006 at 08:38 am
Avatar for robert108

jeniele: A little secret: Wealthy people work more than those who are less wealthy.  Get used to it.  Productivity is the key in our economic system.  Glad you got the upward mobility part of how we do business.

robert108 on August 3, 2006 at 08:44 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.