Pages

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Let's Hope This is the End of Welfare Reform as We Know It

       Arthur Brooks writes a hit piece on Obama in-where else?-the WSJ editorial page:

      "On July 12, the administration unilaterally weakened the federally mandated work requirements for welfare recipients. Since welfare reform was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, the states have been required to have at least half of adult welfare recipients in qualified "work activities"—actual jobs, or participation in education or training programs. Now, however, Mr. Obama's Department of Health and Human Services has announced that the agency will issue waivers to the federal work requirement."

     "This is a dramatic change in direction. As Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, flatly asserts, "This ends welfare reform as we know it."
The 1996 law was arguably the most successful policy change to help low-income Americans in the past 60 years. Welfare policies of the 1960s led generations of families to languish on the government dole at subsistence levels, never gaining the skills to work and with little hope to rise. It took more than a decade to get Congress to reverse course. But it was worth the effort."

    "According to the U.S. government, welfare reform helped to move 4.7 million Americans from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency within three years of enactment. The overall federal welfare caseload declined by 54% between 1996 and 2004."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444860104577558701241637894.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Kind of like the old test for witchery-tie a big weight around a woman's ankle and drop her in the water. If she drowns she's not a witch.

    If the "welfare reform" kicks people off because they don't have jobs and then we see many fewer welfare recipients than previously, that's success. There's a lot of dignity in increased child poverty and child hunger.

    The President certainly did a fine thing on July 10, let's hope it is the start of ending this "reform."

    Mitt Romney has also been hitting the President on the "welfare queen" angle:

    "Mitt Romney’s campaign launched a full-on attack on Tuesday accusing President Obama of gutting welfare reform. In a new ad, policy memo, and press release, Romney claims that the administration’s decision to offer waivers to states that develop innovative ways to meet the law’s work requirements is actually an attempt to “remove work participation rate requirements all together.”

    “Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job,” the ad’s narrator says. “They just send you your welfare check.”

    "The ad is blatantly false — the administration’s plan specifically maintains the work requirement, but allows states to experiment with other methods of transitioning recipients from welfare to work. This is a policy that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says will make Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a more effective program."

   "But the ad is also disingenuous, as it fails to mention that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney explicitly supported the same waiver program he is now criticizing. Romney was one of 29 Republican governors to sign a 2005 letter from the Republican Governor’s Association to congressional leadership touting the benefits a waiver program would bring their states:
The Senate bill provides states with with the flexibility to manage their TANF programs and effectively serve their low-income populations. Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.

      http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/07/649621/romney-ad-welfare-reform/

      Don't get me wrong, Obama's action doesn't by itself end the work requirement, though ti's a start. For my part I'd like to see it gone-at least it shouldn't be a reason to kick people off the rolls. Why should only people with jobs be allowed to be on welfare? Doesn't the need actually run the other way?

     If you have a job you may not need it. It's those who are out of work who have the actual need. While I will always be a Clinton Democrat, welfare reform was my least favorite part of his legacy. While I think he thought he was ending welfare as we knew it, he really just ended it.

    The President's reversal is a welcome change.

No comments:

Post a Comment