In 1988, during the last presidential election campaign, Congress passed the Family Support Act—a much-heralded welfare reform measure that required all states to implement job training and educational programs for welfare recipients. The legislation symbolized a new "social contract," emphasizing government's responsibility to offer needed support for those seeking self-sufficiency, and a commitment to participate on the part of those seeking the benefits.
The idea was, and still is, a good one. But it hasn't brought the kind of radical social change it promised, as a recent study by SUNY's Rockefeller Institute of Government pointed out. The recession, combined with a lack of political will in many states to expand its services, has limited the effect of the job training program. (Because of budget constraints, states have used only about 60 percent of the $1 billion available in matching federal funds.)
Many experts now say that such welfare-to-work programs, while reducing welfare costs and encouraging self-sufficiency, must be supplemented by other government assistance if welfare recipients are to escape poverty.
Meanwhile, as economic conditions have worsened, the number of parents seeking funds through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) has skyrocketed. Many states have responded by freezing or slashing welfare programs such as AFDC and tightening eligibility standards.
In Michigan, where manufacturing jobs are on the decline due to closing plants, Gov. John Engler eliminated last fall the entire "general assistance" cash aid program to single adults in need—a move that religious leaders in the state described as "cruel and immoral."
Many states are now considering punitive measures aimed at changing the behavior of welfare recipients and breaking the "cycle of dependency." A New Jersey welfare reform law scheduled to take effect in July would grant benefits only for those children born before the mother went on public assistance.
In California, Gov. Pete Wilson has announced plans to put a sweeping welfare referendum on the November ballot—the "Taxpayer Protection Act"—that would include immediately cutting welfare grants by 10 percent, with an additional 15 percent cut to anyone staying on welfare for more than six months.
SUCH MEASURES, which would create gaping holes in an already-frayed safety net, have more to do with appeasing anxious taxpayers (and voters) amid troubling economic times than with helping those at the bottom of the economic ladder become more self-sufficient. They are based on stereotypes—such as the myth that women have babies in order to receive welfare—more than fact. The average AFDC recipient has only two children, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C., and the size of the average AFDC family has actually dropped over the past two decades.
The latest round of political rhetoric about making "able-bodied" welfare recipients work ignores the fact that most poor families include at least one full-time worker; and the proliferation of low- or minimum-wage jobs that don't pay a living wage—or offer health benefits—is what causes most poor families to seek government assistance.
Most welfare advocates acknowledge the current economic bind in which most states find themselves and agree there is plenty of room for reform in the current welfare system. But they rightly warn that quick political fixes now on the docket under the guise of "welfare reform" would only lead to greater human misery.
"Politicians are playing on the public resentment of the welfare system, which truly suffers from major problems," Arloc Sherman, of the Children's Defense Fund, told Sojourners. "But instead of fixing it, they're trying to cut it and leave nothing in its place."
Instead of punishing the poor for their current budget woes, states would do better to focus on the root causes of the poverty that pushes people onto the welfare rolls—including the decline of jobs that pay a living wage and the lack of adequate health coverage and child care for low-wage workers.
Many statewide grassroots coalitions are now pushing for these fundamental means of support for those struggling to escape poverty—and those who find their support slipping—as well as exploring possible changes in the state tax codes to make them more equitable.
That is a much better use of time—and taxpayers' money—than scape-goating the victims of the recession.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!