I haven’t fully absorbed this yet, but it clearly bears discussion.
20 Years Since Welfare’s Overhaul, Results Are Mixed
“Mixed” seems a bit too kind for what this piece describes.
She notes that before welfare reform, 68 percent of poor families received cash assistance. Today, that’s dropped to 23 percent.
The new program did work for millions of families, but not all. Many of the most disadvantaged people have been unable to get or keep jobs, and they’re worse off than they were before, in part because there’s now a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits — and in some states, it’s lower. Arizona this year cut the limit to one year. The idea was that people would be encouraged to find work if they knew their monthly checks would end, but instead, some have been left high and dry.
One year! I am a spoiled college-educated kid from Somerville, and I’ve had one period of unemployment that was longer than a year.
To me, welfare reform is Bill Clinton’s unforgivable sin (and by extension — you know who’s). It’s the root of all liberal distrust of the Clintons.
Sure, one can argue that the country demanded it, “welfare queens,” the shadow of Reagan, etc. But they also could have FOUGHT — they could have made the case FOR welfare as an anti-poverty tool and social safety net.
They made a different choice. If we give President Clinton the benefit of the doubt that he really believed it was politically necessary, then the best we can say is that he chose political necessity over people.
I guess we should just be glad we’re not one of the mixed results.
jconway says
Expanding EITC was a good idea, but TANF has a lot of issues in terms of how it was implemented, particularly by right wing governors. It would’ve also been nice if Democrats passing welfare reform forced Congressional Republicans to reopen job training programs like CEDA.
Ma got her AAB in Accounting from Bunker Hill CC through the CEDA program in the late 70’s early 80’s when she was a single mother on section 8 and welfare. Her work ethic was to use this assistance as an opportunity to better herself and her circumstances. She traveled to Charlestown from North Cambridge and back and then to Waltham where she worked in at a toy factory (which closed in the 90s due to foreign competition).
Well within five years she was off the “dole” as were most of her peers in similar situations. She always resented the welfare queen myth spread by Reagan, even though we had a few “Reagan Democrats” in our extended family.
My sister has fared far worse in the post-TANF environment. She’s also been screwed over by our shitty mental health system, shitty special education system for my nephew, high housing costs which forced her to Marlboro, and the ham handed way Section 8 evictions are appealed and processed. Our state isn’t utopia, it may be for the white suburban liberals in Wayland, but it isn’t for many many other people out there. And they were not helped by NAFTA or TANF. It’s not a right wing attack to say the Clinton’s could’ve done more for the working poor.
SomervilleTom says
I have never disputed that we need something different.
I don’t see the value of arguing about what might have happened twenty years ago. In my view, the Clinton administration did the best that was possible and in so doing stopped a GOP juggernaut that would have been FAR FAR worse. You disagree — great. Politics and governance would be boring if everybody agreed with everybody all the time.
We know what the realities are today. In my view, our challenge today is to address some of the symptoms of our malaise (motivated by simple human compassion) while doing something substantive about the CAUSE of the issue.
The issue we face in today’s America is NOT that too many people don’t have what they need. The issue is that a handful of people have so much more than they need. All of our current government “safety net” — and virtually all of our political posturing from both parties — is premised on somehow finding “jobs” for everybody.
As we’ve said before, that is just NOT going to happen. We have more wealth than any society in human history. We also have historic numbers of poor people in America (although that’s a assertion that merits investigation — I’m not sure that’s actually correct).
Our societal problem is that we rely on jobs/labor to distribute the wealth our national economy generates (except, of course, for the uber wealthy who control most of that wealth). Repeat after me: THERE WILL NEVER AGAIN BE ENOUGH JOBS. The GOP isn’t going to do it. The Democrats aren’t going to do it. Donald Trump won’t do it. Bernie Sanders wouldn’t have done it. Jill Stein won’t do it.
THERE WILL NEVER AGAIN BE ENOUGH JOBS.
We MUST find a different mechanism to distribute the wealth created by the American economy. I suggest that something along the lines of the distributions of oil revenue made by OPEC nations might be in order.
JimC says
This is not quite right.
This is a familiar argument about the Clintons, and we just rehashed it the other day. I’ll compromise: the Clintons did the best THEY could do. It was not the best WE (we Democrats, we Americans) can do.
They are still arguing this. I agree that we shouldn’t relitigate 1996, but the message is still relevant (because we’re still hearing it) in 2016. To bring it back to your point, there were other ways to stop the juggernaut.
Barack Obama, imperfect though he is, made the correct argument: we can and should do better.
centralmassdad says
I don’t disagree with your second paragraph. Where I do disagree is that, gee, why didn’t anyone bother to fight– as if this were not the single biggest issue in national and Congressional campaigns for 20 years or more before Clinton was even elected. The issue was contested as contested can be. Liberal dems just lost.
JimC says
I could quibble, but I don’t want to.
We can and should do better.
johntmay says
and as the man said, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
You are correct, there is never going to be enough jobs for us as long as we continue the paradigm that a job is a 40+ hour a week endeavor with two weeks vacation.
johntmay says
Nickle-and-Dimed said this about Clinton’s Welfare Reform,”The humanitarian rationale for welfare reform – as opposed to the more punitive and stingy impulses that may have actually motivated it – is that work will lift poor women out of poverty while simultaneously inflating their self-esteem and hence their future in the labor market. Thus, whatever the hassles involved in finding child care, transportation, etc, the transition from welfare to work will end happily, in greater prosperity for all. Now there are many problems with this comforting prediction, such as the fact that the economy will inevitably undergo a downturn, eliminating many jobs. Even without a downturn, the influx of of a million former welfare recipients into the low wage market could depress wages by as much as 11.9%, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)in Washington D.C. …..The Center for Public Policy estimates that the odds against a typical welfare recipient’s landing a job at a “living wage” are about 97:1.
In short: Low Wage Work is not a solution to poverty.
jconway says
There is a lot of good literature from economists about an increasingly post-work economy, where automation will begin to exponentially accelerate and eliminate white as well as blue collar professions, let alone, jobs.
On top of this, this kind of economy only reinforced the divide between the 1% and the rest of us. Two solutions present themselves that aren’t on the left/right spectrum. We have to incentivize cooperative ownership to make
more workers owners. This isn’t socialism or communism, if anything it’s a reversion to a more traditional conservative approach to business organizations. Publix is the fastest growing grocery chain in the US and it’s entirely employee owned, locally we have seen Artie T increase the share of ESOPs to employees, etc. mandating ESOPs or otherwise incentivizing them is one way to share the wealth.
The other is massive income redistribution through a UBI. Doing it the right way could consolidate most government services into a block grant given to individuals to do with it as they see fit. It would eliminate poverty and also help people through the job scarcity and part timer future the market will create. I see neither candidates discussing these ideas at length, though Johnson endorsed a libertarian UBI (not nearly high enough) and Clinton has discussed cooperatives. We need more of both.
johntmay says
A fine book on the subject that I recommend.
It covers a lot of the things you mentioned, even goes back to the days of President Washington and Jefferson and their endorsement of such things.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not familiar with the acronym.
jas says
is what I think is meant
johntmay says
The most recent presidential candidate (well, vice presidential) who was in favor of UBI was Sarah Palin.
Nearly every Alaska resident receives an annual payout from an oil wealth trust fund that has been credited with keeping many low-income families out of poverty.
More than 640,000 Alaska residents receive payment from The Alaska Permanent Fund which was begun in 1982.
Alaska’s Permanent Fund was established by a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1976 requiring a portion of state oil revenues be put into a savings account to be available for the distant future, when North Slope oil fields are tapped out.
The annual direct payout to citizens, derived from a formula averaging the Permanent Fund earnings over a five-year period, is unique to Alaska, even though other jurisdictions have resource wealth funds.
Alaska residents must live in the state an entire calendar year before becoming eligible.
The dividend remains an important perk of Alaska residency and a major economic force, used for college and retirement savings, big-ticket purchases, vacations and bill-paying.
Christopher says
…I think I usually hear the U as standing for universal.
jas says
unconditional and universal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
but I have usually heard unconditional – so to each their own (so no need to be picky )
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/ubi-continues-be-wildly-unpopular
http://basicincome-europe.org/ubie/
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/12/an-unconditional-basic-income-is-the-solution-but-the-important-word-here-is-basic/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
johntmay says
“What do the people of America want more than anything else? To my mind, they want two things: work, with all the moral and spiritual values that go with it; and with work, a reasonable measure of security–security for themselves and for their wives and children. Work and security--these are more than words. They are more than facts. They are the spiritual values, the true goal toward which our efforts of reconstruction should lead. These are the values that this program is intended to gain; these are the values we have failed to achieve by the leadership we now have.”
Modern day Democrats keep mentioning the work part, but they have slowly dropped the security part. They may say things like “All Americans deserve a fair shot at the American Dream”, but that falls short of what FDR was addressing. Even “leveling the playing field ” is not enough. Both slogans accept the paradigm that it’s all a contest with winners and losers and neither slogan addresses what will be done for the losers.
SomervilleTom says
“Work, with all the moral and spiritual values that with it” is not available for most Americans today.
Those “moral and spiritual values” hurt as many people as they help. Those values end up telling a young graduate with four year degree who has been unemployed in their field for three years that there is some moral or spiritual failure in the victim. There is not.
We desperately need a radical new paradigm, not just for how we distribute wealth, but for how each of us lives our life. It is both heaven and hell — we live in a society where there is enough wealth that NONE of us needs to live in poverty if that wealth were distributed.
While that might address a set of material needs, it does not address the spiritual needs that “work” fulfills for many. What happens to American society when people are able to do what they WANT to do, rather than what they must do in order to “earn a living”?
I suggest that the answers to that question are profound and — for many — profoundly disturbing.
johntmay says
If a a young graduate with four year degree has been unemployed in their field for three years, that there is some moral or spiritual failure in the system.
> What happens to American society when people are able to do what they WANT to do, rather than what they must do in order to “earn a living”?
My stomach turns sour each time I sit through a graduation ceremony and listen to the speakers tell the kids that they are about to embark on an lifetime of fulfilling work… work that their four years in college have prepared them for. It’s all about work, little about life.
hesterprynne says
Just a reminder that Massachusetts blazed the welfare reform trail. Governor Bill Weld and Human Services Secretary Charlie Baker pioneered work requirements and time limits, and Bill Clinton’s welfare reform copied those ideas the following year.
jotaemei says
Thanks. Will look into it.
johntmay says
As you all know, I was laid off from my full time job at the age of 60. I was eligible for unemployment assistance. A requirement was that I made three separate efforts on three different days each week to find suitable employment. Three job interviews on one day only count as one activity, and the department wanted to see three different things each week, not three of the same. I was audited once.
Suitable employment is defined as employment that was reasonably close to what I was doing before; similar pay, hours, travel time, responsibilities. I was required to research the wages of similar positions and seek them as well. I kept a log sheet, diary, and compete account of everything I did. And it was all a farce. The odds of me finding suitable employment were close to zero. My previous job paid me $5,000 a year over the highest wages in the area with similar jobs. I was getting four weeks vacation and I was 60 years old. The idea that I would find suitable employment was a fantasy. However, if I did not seek it, I would not receive my unemployment payments.
If anyone asked if I was really, honestly, looking for work, my reply was the same, “Yes, as really and honestly as I buy a lottery ticket to win a fortune.” So yes, I did seek employment and yes, I do buy the occasional lottery ticket.
Every week, usually on Morning, I would fill out the on line form, update my “activity list” and plan my schedule of “seeks” for the week. I typically made five, not three, just in case two were disqualified.
But here’s the thing. Social Security lowers the requirements (called grids) for anyone over 60 who is seeking disability. The reason claimants over the age of 60 are much more likely to be approved under the grids is because Social Security takes into consideration the fact that it may be harder for older workers to learn new skills and to transition into new workplaces.
So why does the same government treat unemployed people over 60 the same way as the rest?
In my opinion, this sort of legislation is motivated by those who want the unemployed and the poor to feel shame. You know those emails and FB posts where the person says “I had to take a drug test to get a job. People on welfare ought to take a drug test too!” Never mind that in every such case where a state has conducted testing, the results are the same; people on welfare are less likely to do illegal drugs than people in general. But it’s all about shame and lots of it, heaped on the poor for being poor.
SomervilleTom says
It certainly is about shame. Perhaps it is shame, and lots of it, heaped on seniors for daring to live past 60. I have, fortunately, not been “poor” so far in this life, but I suppose that might be coming later.
As I mentioned upthread, those famous words of FDR are too often used against the innocent. When we use phrases like “Work, with all the moral and spiritual values that go with it”, we too often imply that those who are unable to attain the work they seek are unemployed because they lack those “moral and spiritual values”.
I am 63, and I am a programmer. My current job (I’ve held it since 2013) is not nearly as lucrative as my prior job — I got it after more than a year of unemployment. That prior job was a step down from the one that preceded it. My hourly/monthly income peaked more than fifteen years ago, in 1999-2001.
We have built a society where large segments of both our youngest and our oldest workers are essentially unemployable — and yet the game of musical chairs continues.
We need a new “game”, not more chairs.
johntmay says
I put the part time in quotes because I work everyday, as do most people. However, on some days, I do not work at my house, I work for a family that owns a large food market nearby. I make a few bucks, enough for groceries, home utilities, and some pocket money. More importantly, I work there because I love what I do, I get to spend time with people I enjoy, and I get to do things that interest me and give me pleasure when I master them. Quite honestly, I’d “work” there even if they did not pay me. I am driven by purpose, not money.
Yes, we need a new game. I doubt I will get to play it at this stage but I am eager to help create it.
scott12mass says
When I worked I punched in and (along with hundreds of other guys) counted every minute. I remember when corporate switched us from piecework to daywork (set hourly rates) we had meetings where outside advisers came and told us “money is not the most important motivator”. I asked one of them if the company was paying them to tell us that and if they would drop their contract price, that wasn’t well received.
It would have been nice to enjoy what I did but those jobs didn’t pay well. There is a new direction for the economy and well paying factory jobs are disappearing, but there will always be the guy who pumps the septic tanks, or is willing to work 11-7 to monitor the kiln settings. How society values those working a career they choose vs those working a job is going to be a difficult choice.
Christopher says
He vetoed welfare reform twice before signing one he could live with. I do not at all consider it an unforgivable sin on either the policy or the politics. I also recall HRC being more reluctant than he was if you insist on tarring her with his actions. What I don’t understand is why states administer federal programs, especially why they are allowed to change federal standards. What happened to the privilege and immunities clause? Personally I would have said you have to show evidence of job seeking or reason you can’t on an continuing basis rather than an arbitrary cutoff.
jotaemei says
He vetoed it a couple times until they changed some things around the edges, and then signed it, and bragged about it for years, as well as Hillary did in her book. They were so proud of this until recently, when they started getting criticized for it. Didn’t Hillary change a passage in one of her books to do some revisionist history on this or the mass incarceration they unleashed?
Christopher says
…will air a program on 20 years of welfare reform, at least according to the electronic TV guide, which in my experience you have to take with a grain of salt when it comes to this network. I’m sure it will re-air several times as well.