Recent Changes To Welfare Essay Research Paper

When President Bill Clinton reluctantly signed the Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, he had an idea of what the

critical responses would be. The hope was to induce a program that would

bring significant benefits to the needy and hungery people of our country.

However, the response and criticisms are equivalent to what our president

expected, very negative.

Mary Jo Bane believes the new welfare law poses serious dangers to poor

children and families. As assistant secretary for children and families in

the Department of Health and Human services, she supported the

administration’s efforts to refocus the welfare system on work and to increase

state flexibility through the waiver process. But in the course of reviewing

state welfare reform proposals, she became concerned that politics and

financial pressures were pushing states into a “race to the bottom”(Bane). As

long as the old law was in place the federal government could insist on

guaranteed assistance and protections for recipients. Her fears about what

would happen to poor children when states were no longer required to provide

the modest assurances and protections we insisted on in waiver demonstrations

led her to resign after President Clinton signed the welfare bill (Bane).

The reform takes away national level responsibilities and puts the money and

responsibility into the individual states. A good amount of flexibility is

provided, which may or may not result in a positive manner. For instance,

they money could be used on the work reform and job preparation, while others

could find loopholes in the laws, and while their purposes may not be

malicious, the money would not truly be carrying out the role intended.

“No longer will cash assistance to dependent children be guaranteed by the

federal government. Instead it will be provided, or not, by states using

block grants.” (Bane) This is the basic premise of the new bill.

Specifically, there are nine titles addressing separate issues involved. The

bulk of the 54 billion dollar savings appears in Numbers XV and XIII. They

offer the most serious impact, according to Mrs. Smith and they were also

considered the most flawed by President Clinton. Title IV bans most legal

immigrants from receiving most federal benefits. Title XIII cuts food stamp

benefits across the board and restricts food stamp benefits to unemployed

adults without disabilities or dependents to 3 months out of 36 (Bane). Most

of the 54 billion in savings come from these two titles alone. Mary Jo feels

the greatest weakness of the reform is the lack of response to the children,

who are in turn, not supported anymore after the parent has failed to win a

job and has used up their five year limit on assistance. What would happen to

them we ask? There is no data to tell us.

Another reporter is more concerned with the unrealistic ideals of the job

program. Although in some states it has in fact benefited them, it could

ultimately spell disaster. The preparation program has little to no focus on

post secondary education, which is really what leads into most of the

worthwhile jobs (The Issues, Welfare Reform p.2-3). Without even a high

school diploma, the majority of the jobs taken are merely in the fast food

industry, making 5-6 dollars an hour with no benefits (Heaven knows what would

happen if there was an accident.) These type jobs also inculde a highly

unpredictable work schedule. The individual would never have a reliable

income. Even more distressing is that in the estimated required wage for a

single mother to earn in order to feed, house, and transport is around 8-9

dollars an hour, a considerable amount less than the average.

Another problem with the work-based part of the program, is that there may be

no jobs left over to be acquired. There are certainly not enough well-paying

programs to go around. It is quite possible that without the creation and

implementation of a public-sector employment agency, there may never be enough

jobs. Can we deny people assistance because there are simply no jobs

leftover? (The Issues, Welfare Reform p. 5)

Another agrues that it is not truly welfare refrom. It does not promote work

effectively, and it will hurt millions of poor children when it fully

implemented. He is also deeply concerned with the fact that it bars hundreds

of thousands of legal immigrants — including many who have worked in the

United States for decades and paid a considerable amount in Social Security

and income taxes — from receiving disability and old-age assistance and food

stamps, and reduces food-stamp assistance for millions of children in working

families. If the said parent fails to find a job or exceed their five year

total, what would happen to the children? The answer, disturbingly, is

nothing. During a floor debate, Senator Edward Kennedy described this as

“legislative child abuse”. (Edelman)

While the authors are agreed that this is ,overall, a bad idea, they also each

can’t help but praise a few pieces of the legislation, such as the child care

and self-improvement initiative. They express how the program set forth in a

well intended manner, in the hopes of correcting one of our nations greatest

problems, can turn into many new problems. The hardest part lies in the fact

that there is no universal answer to an issue as large, widespread, and

diverse as the welfare program. We have learned that there is much work to be

done and many changes to be made before we will ever have a “win-win”

situation.

Bane, Mary Jo. “Welfare as We Might Know It”. Copyright 1997.

Political Science Quarterly. 40 par. 11 June, 1999

.

“The Issues, Welfare Reform”

CQ Researcher, December 6, 1996

Edelman, Peter. “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done” March 1997

The Atlantic Montly. 109 par. June 13, 1999

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97mar/edelman/edelman.htm