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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
