Welfare Reform: Liberals Were Chicken Littles

Liberals, either by design or simply because they believe in wrong ideas, often make outrageous statements. Yet they are seldom held accountable. Scott Stanley, now deputy managing editor of Insight Magazine, when he was editor of a publication called "Review of the News," was the only media person to systematically juxtapose what liberals said with what really happened.

Well, the House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, has borrowed a leaf from Stanley and in a "Dear Colleague" letter examined what the liberals said about welfare reform as enacted in 1996 vs. the reality of what really took place since the bill was passed. It is only fair that Armey should perform this task, since every time the massive Clinton tax increase of 1993 is mentioned, a dozen liberals pop up out of nowhere to remind Armey that he had predicted a terrible recession if the bill was passed. We had no recession and instead enjoyed record prosperity. Armey counters that the recession was avoided because the Republicans gained control of the Congress in 1994, cut spending, and passed tax cuts which avoided the recession.

But I digress. Back to the welfare reform measure, which the GOP Congress passed in 1996. The first time around, Clinton vetoed the measure. The GOP Congress passed it again with minor changes, and Clinton vetoed that bill as well. For a third time, the Republicans in Congress made a few small changes to the bill and sent it to the president's desk. Dick Morris, who at that time was still advising Clinton, told him he had better sign this welfare bill or risk losing the election to Bob Dole, who was prepared to make Clinton's 1992 pledge "to end welfare as we know it" a major issue in his campaign against Clinton. Clinton reluctantly signed the measure. Now, it is up for re-authorization.

So as this is debated in Congress, Armey went back into his files and this is what he found:

Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children's Defense Fund, called the bill that Clinton signed an "outrage...that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children." She went on to say that the welfare reform act would leave a "moral blot" on Clinton's presidency and on our nation itself which will never be forgotten.

What actually happened, according to the Majority Leader, is that there are 2.3 million fewer children living in poverty than there were in 1996. Armey added sarcastically that the "moral blot" on the Clinton Presidency had nothing to do with welfare reform.

Meanwhile, back then The Urban Institute predicted that the welfare reform bill would push 2.6 million more people into poverty and cause eight million families to lose income. And Patricia Ireland, the then-president of the National Organization for Women, predicted that the bill Clinton signed, "places 12.8 million people on welfare at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness." Peter Edelman, then Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at HHS, resigned his post in protest over what Clinton had done, claiming that the welfare reform law would do serious injury to American children and create "more crime, increased infant mortality and increased drug and alcohol abuse." He also predicted an increase in family violence and abuse against children and women.

What really happened, according to Armey, is that there are 4.2 million fewer people living in poverty today than in 1996, despite the recession.

The poverty rate among single mothers is at the lowest point in U.S. history. Crime has gone down over this same period, and the Department of Agriculture says there are nearly 2 million fewer hungry children now than in 1996. Employment of young single mothers has about doubled and employment of mothers without a high school diploma has increased by 60%.

The share of children living in single mother families has fallen, while the share living in married couple families has increased, with no correlated increase in abuse against women and children.

And finally, the out of wedlock birth rate has remained flat for the past five years and has actually decreased among the African-American community.

That is quite a record, and one that directly contradicts the predictions of the experts.

Now Robert Carleson, who was Ronald Reagan's welfare director in California in the 1970s when Reagan became famous for welfare reform which worked and who also handled Reagan's welfare reform work when he was president, has this advice for the Congress as it now considers re-authorization: Leave the Bill alone. It is working. Don't try to fix it.

Carleson, who helped to draft the 1996 bill and who is now a senior fellow at the Free Congress Foundation, said he could think of ways to improve the measure here and there but once that Pandora's Box is opened, it paves the way for all sorts of revisions by the liberals which will end up destroying the good work this bill has accomplished.

Meanwhile now that Armey is leaving the Congress and must find gainful employment, I suggest a three times a week column to be also taped for radio and television, which would compare statements made over the years by liberals compared with what really has happened. The Cold War would be a splendid point to begin such a project.

"Equality of rights" means that what is legal for A is also legal for B, and what's illegal for A is also illegal for B.

It appears we concur. So, if creating an child you either can't or won't support is irresponsible or wrong for A it is irresponsible/wrong for B as well.

"Equality of condition" means that if A is economicly worse off than B, then it is legitimate to take away some of B's stuff without B's consent and give it to A.

Except that we did NOT take away from B without consent, we voted on funding welfare because most voters thought at the time (1960's) it would solve some problems. It turns out we were wrong about much of the strategy and miscalculated unintended consequences. Ooops. Now we're trying to correct some of those mistakes. Welfare Reform is supposed to be about correcting or recalibrating the welfare system, not creating new problems (like "family caps" did). Let's be more careful and not be so "wrong" again. IMO a better strategy this time around would be focussing on individual responsibility.

You keep saying that we would have a horrible situation without AFDC and the rest of the Welfare State. Prior to the 1960's we did not have AFDC, and we did not have a horrible situation.

That was in large part because we DID require fathers to be responsible moreso than we do today ie "shotgun weddings". I'm not suggesting we go back to that, but the premis of dual responsibility for kids (by the people who created them) is a sound premis. We can build on that.

Except that we did NOT take away from B without consent, we voted on funding welfare because most voters thought at the time (1960's) it would solve some problems.

You, perhaps, voted in favor of welfare. I did not. It does not have my consent. This is what I'm talking about.

If two guys walk up to you and say "We need money for a worthy cause. The two of us vote that you should give us the money that we want. We outvote you. Now hand over your purse or we will hurt you", would you agree that you consented to hand over your purse?

You may protest that my example is improper, with a vote of 2 against 1. Well, would it be more proper at 2 thousand against 1 thousand? At 2 million against 1 million? Where does the magic come in?

We are in a situation where a large percentage of the voting population pay little or no income taxes. Over half of income tax revenues come from the top 10% of income producers. The people who pay little taxes have no incentive to keep govt spending down, and every incentive to keep their benefits high.

You, perhaps, voted in favor of welfare. I did not. It does not have my consent. This is what I'm talking about.

Well I wasn't around when these big programs got started. If I had been, I might have voted for them, I can't say. A lot of people apparently thought it was a good plan. In any case, it's too late to change history. We tried it, it didn't work (or large portions didn't work) and now we need to move on from there. What I'm suggesting is that in the moving on phase, we not compound our errors by dredging up schemes from the past that didn't work either, like unilateral scapegoating, and pretending that is "reform".

Regarding your metaphor of democracy as thuggery: This is a simplification of how our system works. It has an element of truth to it... the tyranny of the masses sort of thing, but you ommitted that what happens also is a move to the center. Under our system, in general, two extremes cancel each other out and we get a middle position. Whatever your beef is with our system (and I agree it is not flawless) what is a better system for determining public policy?

We are in a situation where a large percentage of the voting population pay little or no income taxes. Over half of income tax revenues come from the top 10% of income producers. The people who pay little taxes have no incentive to keep govt spending down, and every incentive to keep their benefits high.

This is true. One vote per person is a powerful force, and perhaps it will doom us, who knows. But so far, in the overall, it has worked out well for us. This is getting into a much larger discussion than welfare. There are scads of public policies I don't like. I'm sure it's the same for you and most people. What are the alternatives for people who have disagreements with how things are run in our country?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.