I take second place to nobody in my disdain for the '96 law, but the
lay of the land
has changed in some important ways.
Not everyone deprived of cash assistance under TANF was left bereft. They could
be shifted to state-financed cash benefits. States do this to satisfy
jive requirements
that restrict eligibility for Federal dollars. More important, a lot
of the money was
turned into in-kind benefits, such as child care subsidies,
transportation coupons,
etc. You also have the expansion of the EITC, which is now much
bigger than TANF.
In general the '96 law caused the institution of work-conditioned
benefits. If "welfare" is
no more and everybody is a worker, then there is a framework to advocate more
work-based benefits and, of course, jobs for the unemployed.
Given the wide range of measures being pursued by Congress, the likelihood of
some kind of recession-based supplement to TANF is also high.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM, joel blau <jblau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This contradicts the Washington Post of 12/17/08 ["Welfare Rolls See First
Climb in Years], which emphasizes the individual states where the rolls have
increased. The overall decline from 1996 to 2008 is 66% (12.3 million to
4.25 million recipients), with a very slight uptick over the last year
(+10,000). The article demonstrates that the 1996 legislation effectively
neutered the program, removing it from that modest list of social provisions
that Americans can count.on.
A sidebar: apparently, Jason DeParle has returned to the New York Times to
write about welfare, so we'll probably see more articles like this in the
months ahead.
Joel Blau
Jim Devine wrote:
from SLATE:
The New York Times leads with a look at how the number of people
receiving welfare has remained near historically low levels despite
increasing unemployment and the ongoing economic crisis. A total of 18
states went as far as to cut their welfare rolls last year, which is raising
fears that the government isn't doing enough to help those in need during
turbulent times.
When welfare was reformed under President Bill Clinton, many critics
cautioned that while the new program might work well during flush times, it
would fail to help those in need during an economic downturn. These critics
now see the decreasing welfare rolls in many states as evidence of "an
obstacle-ridden program that chases off the poor, even when times are
difficult," as the NYT puts it. Supporters contend that those in need often
don't seek help right away, but 20 states expanded their welfare rolls last
year. In addition, every state expanded its food-stamp program, suggesting
"a safety net at odds with itself." <
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l