There is consensus among Democrats and Republicans that thewelfare system in America is broken. Even a majority of the poorexpress dissatisfaction with the welfare system and believe that itneeds reform.
President Clinton came to office promising to "end welfareas we know it." Having already vetoed two similar welfare reformbills from the GOP-dominated Congress, he said Wednesday he willsign this version, despite some rather mean-spirited measures beingpushed by the radical right.
This will be a major disappointment to those who wanted to endpoverty as we know it. There is good reason to believe that thisround of welfare reform will do more harm than good.
Most Americans want anti-poverty programs that will help thetruly needy, encourage individuals to obtain skills and educationthey need for gainful employment, provide incentives for work andfamily stability, and reduce fraud and abuse. They want toaccomplish these goals without doing harm to innocent children andothers who cannot provide for themselves.
Still, many Americans' sentiments might be formed by erroneousassumptions that collide head-on with realities that confrontpolicymakers. For example, most Americans assume there aresubstantial savings to be achieved through reductions in Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children. Although this program costs thefederal and state governments $23 billion, it represents only 1.1percent of the federal budget. The typical AFDC mother and her twochildren receive less than $375 per month. The real (cost of livingadjusted) value of AFDC benefits already has decreased by about 50percent since the early 1970s.
Athough AFDC helps support nearly 10 million children, it isslated for elimination under the proposed welfare reform, which willconvert AFDC to block grants to the states.
Under block grants, children and their parents no longer willhave assurance of receiving any cash assistance even if they are verypoor, their family meets all of their state's eligibilityrequirements, and the parents are prepared to participate in a workprogram and measure up to all work requirements.
It is likely that this change will lead to higher rates andlevels of poverty, as the proposed legislation would allow states todecrease their levels of spending to 75 percent of what they providedfor these programs in 1994. Meanwhile, states can transfer up to 30percent of their federal welfare block grant funds to other programssuch as foster care and adoption assistance.
It is also likely that substantially greater numbers of poorchildren whose parents will be unable to find jobs will be deniedassistance. The Office of Management and Budget projects that thesereforms will increase by 1.5 million the number of children living inpoverty. More than half of the proposed $53 billion (over sixyears) in spending reductions would come from the food stamp program.When fully implemented, the proposed legislation would reduce foodstamp benefits by nearly 20 percent. For recipients, this translatesinto having their benefits reduced to 65 cents per person per meal.But what might be even more outrageous to most budget-conscioustaxpayers is that only 2 percent of the anticipated savings wouldcome from provisions to reduce fraud and abuse or administrativecosts.
Under the Republican congressional plan, food stamp recipientsand their families would be cut off from food assistance after fourmonths unless they are working or enrolled in a work or trainingprogram, regardless of whether a work or training slot is available.In contrast, President Clinton's proposal would not deny food stampsto anyone willing to work.
The plan also would do more harm than good to other vulnerablegroups. Stable poor families: States could again find themselves in thebusiness of breaking up families because it would be permissible todeny assistance to two-parent families. The working poor: On the chopping block are more than $18 billion inearned income tax credits that go to 5 million families that work butearn less than 150 percent of the poverty line. The elderly poor: The bill proposes cuts of $7 billion inSupplemental Security Income benefits to the elderly and disabledpoor. Immigrants who are poor: The proposal calls for cuts of $19 billionin assistance to immigrants in such programs as Medicaid, schoollunches and breakfasts, and other child nutrition programs.
But those who think these reforms will result in overall savingsare wrong. Reform actually will cost more money for job training,child care for the children of those participating in mandated workor training, and for the creation of public works jobs to accommodatenew entrants into the labor force.
In short, despite the continuing public support for welfarereform, backers of this version seem to be missing the point. MostAmericans are willing to administer the tough love that they believeis necessary to fix the welfare mess, but they want to do so withoutharming the least able among us.
The public outcry is for a real war on poverty, not a war on thepoor and their children.
Cedric Herring is a professor in the Institute of Government andPublic Affairs and the Department of Sociology at the University ofIllinois at Chicago, and editor of a forthcoming book, AfricanAmericans and the Public Agenda: The Paradoxes of Public Policy.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий