Welfare Reform: Liberals Were Chicken Littles

ToogoodReports ^ | May 7, 2002 | Paul M. Weyrich

[Starmaker]

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.

[sleavelessinseattle]

Bump, PING!!! Sick em Armey!

[Enterprise]

"Welfare Reform: Liberals Were Chicken Littles"

And don't forget that they are American Political Life's biggest chicken s..ts!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Although most states have shaved welfare roles by as much as 50%, mosts states, unfortunately, are actually spending MORE on welfare than ever.

[Lorianne]

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

But the abortion rate has increased in states which passed the "family caps" guidelines recommended in the Welfare Reform Act.

One bonus that comes with dead children .....they don't require much in the way of food and shelter. One wonders if this is not part of the plan.

[The Giant Apricots]

But the abortion rate has increased in states which passed the "family caps" guidelines recommended in the Welfare Reform Act. One bonus that comes with dead children .....they don't require much in the way of food and shelter. One wonders if this is not part of the plan.

If you oppose "family caps" on the basis that they encourage abortion, which is a good basis for objecting, what would be the tenets of welfare reform that you would propose? Step into the shoes of Tommy Thompson for a moment...

[Lorianne]

I would use more carrot and less stick. But the main thing I would do is emphasize personal responsibility in an equal way for both parents. That means getting serious about both parents being equally responsible and accountable for the kids they co-create.

I would set up programs which reward States for the number of people, especially parents, who complete job training and education milestones. For example bonuses to states which have higher rates of high school graduation. Bonuses to states which have low unemployement rates, bonuses to states who move more people off of welfare including dependent children. Bonuses to State which have reduced both OOW births and abortion. (Right now States are praised for reducing OOW births only).

For example if a single parent moves gets a job and is contributing to the support and care of the child, that's great. But if he/she still can't make ends meet alone, then we need to make up the shortfall of the missing parent States which have higher numbers of TWO parents contributing to the support and care of their children would also get a bonus.

I'd provide more job training and education and even job placement help to parents who agree to support their kids. One program that is being proposed is the State (or Feds I'm not sure) paying 1/2 of the salary for the first year to employers who hire welfare recipients. This sounds like a good plan. I'd extend it to people who's kids are receiving welfare if the parent agrees to pay child support (the amount would have to be figured out). Basically try to set up programs that would give priority in jobs to those who are actively supporting their kids over deadbeats even if the deadbeat is more qualified. The government paying for 1/2 the salary for the first year plus skill training would be a big carrot for both parents and employers to reward responsible behavior. Provide perks like education, job skill training and even job placement to parents who have a proven track record of supporting their offspring. The government could also offer heftier tax credits to parents supporting their kids in the same why we provide mortgage credits to promote home ownership.

I would create programs in schools aimed at letting people know what the welfare and child support rules are and basic fianancial management, what it takes to support and raise a child in TIME and MONEY and other resources. And I would make sure the boys KNOW up front that they are not going to get off scot free if they co-create a child. We need to pound in the 50/50 responsibility theme. Right now, we are busy educating our young women to accept their second class stutus based on pro-creative status. This is counterproductive to creating good responsible citizens. If you tell someone right off the bat they are second class citizens who will be treated unfairly as a matter of public policy, they have no incentive to be good responsible citizens. "Equal justice for all" is a hollow concept for them. A person who has no vested interest in a system they see as inherently unfair from the get go is more likely to abuse the system. It's called passive-aggressive.

Lastly, I would do a major PR campaign letting people know that welfare to children (including subsidizing child care facilities so that parents can work) is subsidizing the defaulted obligations of BOTH parents, not just one. Time is a resource just like money. If you are neither paying for your kids nor taking hands on care of them, you are in default of your parental obligations.

Taxpayers have a right to know exactly and truthfully who's obligations they are subsidzing with welfare dollars. We need change the rhetoric about "single mothers" and "deadbeat dads" and instead spend a lot more time talking about PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS to kids created in a fair and equal way.

[The Giant Apricots]

Time is a resource just like money. If you are neither paying for your kids nor taking hands on care of them, you are in default of your parental obligations. Taxpayers have a right to know exactly and truthfully who's obligations they are subsidzing with welfare

I agree with much of what you have said. Yet, one problem is that the current system assigns the Time obligation primarily to the mother, and the Money obligation primarily to the father.

And there is the root of the entire problem.

[The Giant Apricots]

P I N G !

[SauronOfMordor]

But the abortion rate has increased in states which passed the "family caps" guidelines recommended in the Welfare Reform Act.

OK, so offer free sterilization or Norplant to welfare women

One possible reason for reduced crime: when welfare pays the rent, you don't need a reliable guy as your husband. It's more fun to hook up with a drug dealer with lots of cash to take you places and buy you presents. If he gets blown away tomorrow, well, there's another one around somewhere.

A large percentage of men tend to want to make money, so they can attract women. If being in a good job attracts women, then they will study and work hard to be promoted into a good job. If being a drug dealer makes you attractive to women, many will become dealers. The women control the incentive system

[Lorianne]

Yet, one problem is that the current system assigns the Time obligation primarily to the mother, and the Money obligation primarily to the father.

This is indeed a big part of the problem. But one that could be solved if people decided that both time and money invested in children is of equal value and equal importance. We need fathers for more than just money but our society doesn't emphasize that. We are too busy trying to find ways for people to get off the hook in all ways and discount the personal responsibility of both parents towards meeting their obligations to their kids.

[Lorianne]

OK, so offer free sterilization or Norplant to welfare women

Ok, fine by me. And what about free sterilization for men who produce children who end up on welfare? And free condoms? And spending more money on developing more male contraceptive options? There is a Norplant-like drug for men in the works right now, for example. (It has side effects similar to Norplant for women though and no one knows the long term health risks). Think we could offer it free of charge to men who have produced kids who end up on welfare?

[Lorianne]

A large percentage of men tend to want to make money, so they can attract women. If being in a good job attracts women, then they will study and work hard to be promoted into a good job. If being a drug dealer makes you attractive to women, many will become dealers. The women control the incentive system

Hmmmmm. Seems to me you're saying that women are responsible for men deciding to become drug dealers. Is that right? What about personal responsibility? Are men exempt?

[SauronOfMordor]

Ok, fine by me. And what about free sterilization for men who produce children who end up on welfare?

An exercise in futility when applied to the welfare-class. What's the incentive to the guy to go along? With the woman, she has the incentive of the state not paying for any more kids.

The government has little leverage on the guys of the welfare neighborhoods. You can't seize their salaries for child support if they're not working a regular job. The woman may not even know his correct name or where he lives(even if he has a fixed address, which many don't).

And even if you sterilize 90% of the guys, all it takes is a few unsterilized guys with active libidos

[SauronOfMordor]

Seems to me you're saying that women are responsible for men deciding to become drug dealers. Is that right? What about personal responsibility? Are men exempt?

I'm talking about incentives. Many people don't care about morality, only incentives. If stealing is easier than work, and poses little risk of actual punishment, then they will steal. If consequences are actively enforced, then they may decide to work instead

There is a type of person who doesn't care about sin, about right-versus-wrong, about honor, or about justice. This type only cares about satisfying his or her percieved needs. If he's hungry and doesn't have cash for McDonalds, his solution will be to bash some old lady and take her purse. If he's horny, he will drag some woman into an alley. If dealing drugs will satisfy his desire for income, then he will deal drugs. The only way to deal with this person is to either alter the incentive system, or kill him. Killing them is probably the more cost-effective long-term solution, but it is politically unpalatable at this time

[Lorianne]

An exercise in futility when applied to the welfare-class. What's the incentive to the guy to go along? With the woman, she has the incentive of the state not paying for any more kids.

I see. So we use the kids as hostage to social engineer her behavior, meanwhile the kids get cut off welfare. Mom can sit by and watch the kids go without while dad goes on his merry way? Is this the plan? Sounds kind of unfair and unequal to me. Sounds kind of harsh on the kids too. This was the "family caps" agenda in a nutshell only it backfired, and the abortion rate went up. Also, it didn't work as planned as people just gave one kid to a family member who then applied for welfare on the kid's behalf so the new kid would be covered. It just didn't work out whichever way you look at it. Abortion went up and non-compliance with the new rules was rampant... not the kind of "behavior modification" they were looking for I don't think.

The government has little leverage on the guys of the welfare neighborhoods.

So go after the women and kids ... basically because you can? Fairness and equal justice under the law, the cornerstones of our republic, goes right out the window? What this proposes is that women who procreate are lesser citizens than men who procreate, and will be held to a different unequal standard .... plus, the kids will be punished to make the point.

Look I agree women who procreate irresponsibly need to modify their behaviour, but so do men. I don't accept the "boys will be boys" argument. And I sure as hell don't accept unequal standards under the law on sexual/reproductive matters. People who want to live under that system should move to Nigeria or fundementalist Islamic countries or China. We're not perfect, but we're a damn sight better than these places.

The bottom line is it take TWO people to create a new person. Both are responsible for either preventing conception or standing up and being accountable for the consequences. You either believe in personal responsibility or you don't. That goes for men as well as women. It's just that simple.

[SauronOfMordor]

So go after the women and kids ... basically because you can? Fairness and equal justice under the law, the cornerstones of our republic, goes right out the window?

In a perfect world, everybody would be happy. It's not a perfect world. There are guys being forced to pay child support for kids even AFTER DNA evidence proves they are not the biological father. Why? Because they're the ones that can be grabbed.

The facts of life are that the woman has all the choices. If she chooses to abort, there is not a damn thing the biological father can do to stop her, even if he's legally married to her. Women have agitated for decades for the "right to choose". Well, now they have the choice.

The case we're talking about is women who choose to have babies, because they know the govt will support them. If the system is changed so that having a baby you're not able to support creates an uncomfortable situation, then women will make damn sure they're not going to get pregnant

The bottom line is: I've got three kids of my own to support. I DO NOT want to support the kids of some welfare mom, and will support measures to discourage welfare types from having kids at my expense -- by any means necessary.

[wwjdn]

VERY WELL SAID!!!

[Lorianne]

In a perfect world, everybody would be happy. It's not a perfect world. There are guys being forced to pay child support for kids even AFTER DNA evidence proves they are not the biological father. Why? Because they're the ones that can be grabbed.

Well, this is unfair. What's more it can be changed and the system made more fair by universal DNA testing at birth. Are you suggesting we not try to correct inequity and injustice in our society?

The facts of life are that the woman has all the choices. If she chooses to abort, there is not a damn thing the biological father can do to stop her, even if he's legally married to her. Women have agitated for decades for the "right to choose". Well, now they have the choice.

Well, I for one support the choice NOT to abort. I don't see why one would on the one hand say he/she is pro-Life (as I and many are) and then proceed to demonize and punish the people (actually the children of people) the people who don't abort! This makes no logical sense. Also, it boils down to punishing children for being born, which is really really unfair. There has to be a better way.

The case we're talking about is women who choose to have babies, because they know the govt will support them. If the system is changed so that having a baby you're not able to support creates an uncomfortable situation, then women will make damn sure they're not going to get pregnant

These kind of behavior modification plans aimed at only women have never worked. What actually happens is you create a perminent underclass of people, women and their children, which feeds the cycle of poverty and dispair.

If you go to any developing country where there is no social safety net for OOW kids or orphans, you see the most horrible things in the streets. I've been to many of these places and I can say I don't want to walk out my door and be confrtonted with such destitution and crime in my own country.

The bottom line is: I've got three kids of my own to support. I DO NOT want to support the kids of some welfare mom...

The thing is, the kids are not just hers, they have a father too. We cannot just ignore this fact. I don't want to pay for irresponsible behavior of MEN and women either. But I know my tax money is going to support the irresponsible father's lifestyle just as much as the mother's. ... and will support measures to discourage welfare types from having kids at my expense -- by any means necessary.

I won't support ends-justify-the-means measures that violate the human rights of women (like in China) or grossly unfair laws for women (like in Nigeria or other fundementalist Islamic countries). I don't want to live in a country which trashes human rights of one group of people solely based on sex.

I don't want to pay for irresponsible people either. If I have to make a choice between living in a totalitarian state with unequal justice under the law and paying more taxes for welfare I'll choose the latter. But I don't think I have to make that choice. That's why I'll continue to demand equal personal responsibility and equal accountablity of both parents to children created.