Ten Miles Square


August 08, 2012 12:03 PM Beating Up on Welfare Recipients

By Harold Pollack

Governor Romney has a new 30-second spot on the old standby of welfare reform.

The ad claims that President Obama…

Quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work. You wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.

At issue is a July 12 federal memorandum, which allows states greater flexibility in crafting their work requirements to move poor single moms into paid work. The spot rather grotesquely mischaracterizes what the Obama administration has done. To begin with, there’s no such thing as “Obama’s plan.” Welfare is mainly operated by the states, which enjoy all-too-wide discretion to impose stringent requirements on welfare recipients. States remain completely free to impose tight work and eligibility requirements—requirements that many fiscally-stressed states have tightened since President Obama took office.

Regular readers know that the 1996 welfare reform abolished a 60-year-old entitlement, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), replacing it with the avowedly transitional Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF).The Obama administration’s memorandum does nothing to alter or weaken the central pillars of the 1996 law, including a five-year lifetime limit on federally-funded cash aid for most recipients, the removal of such assistance as a legal entitlement for low-income families, and a variety of other restrictions on individual recipients.

Right now, states are often rewarded for simply cutting recipients off, or for other activities that do not successfully place recipients into stable jobs. The Obama administration is granting waivers to do better. Under the July 12 memorandum, states must “explain in a compelling fashion” why their proposed approaches would provide “more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs” which “will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits.”

It’s rich that supposed guardians of federalism are in a snit because states might receive greater leeway to depart from a (conservative) federal policy agenda. The hypocrisy was not lost on the Obama administration, which rightly noted that Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and, Mitt Romney and a host of other GOP notables signed a 2005 Republican Governor’s Association letter asking that states be given even greater leeway for TANF waivers.

I’m inclined to give conservatives a bit of a hypocrisy-pass here. On issue after issue–from health reform to abortion to medical marijuana to the minimum drinking age, gun policy, and more–few people across the ideological spectrum deeply care about the division of labor between the federal government and the states. If the federal government happens to profess a more liberal position, conservatives pine eloquently about the states as laboratories of democracy and decry one-size-fits-all solutions. Liberals in-turn, argue that national constitutional or policy issues are at stake. If If the federal government happens to profess a more conservative position, everyone switches places in the federalism debate. There’s no sense complaining about anyone’s hypocrisy. Having seen several state governments in action, I tend to favor greater responsibility and authority moved to the federal level.

More generally, these Romney commercials warn us about a nonexistent problem: The supposed excessive generosity of cash assistance for poor families with children. The most pressing welfare problem is quite different: We’re neglecting millions of low-income families who need help. The number of Americans in poverty increased by ten million between 1996 and 2010. Unemployment among low-income single moms has correspondingly grown. Yet TANF serves a progressively declining share of children living in economic need. When welfare reform was enacted, 68 American families received AFDC/TANF benefits for every 100 families with children in poverty. By 2010, only 27 did.

Consider my own state of Illinois. In 1996, our monthly AFDC caseload averaged about 224,000 families. In 2011, the average caseload had dropped to less than 34,000. Nationwide, the number of families receiving such aid has declined by about 60 percent over the same period.

Benefit levels—always low–have declined, too. Our state’s maximum TANF monthly cash benefit for a family of three is about $432, down in inflation-adjusted terms by about 19 percent since 1996. University of Chicago students generally spend more than that on our individual cafeteria meal plan. If one throws in the value of food stamps, the maximum benefits available to Illinois TANF recipients reach 60 percent of the federal poverty line. We’re about average for the United States.

I get why Governor Romney wishes to change the subject to welfare rather than taxes or inequality. The 1996 welfare reform is popular. Poor single moms who rely on welfare are not.

I confess that I was never a big fan of the old AFDC. Benefits were too low. The idea of an open-ended cash entitlement for at-home single moms doesn’t express the ethic of mutual obligation that most Americans demand of public aid. Nor does this arrangement match current gender roles. Long-term dependence was a legitimate problem, though the reasons for such dependence were often grossly caricatured. The stigma of AFDC undermined more important and more effective efforts to help low-income people. Work requirements in some form seem both justified and necessary for the political legitimacy of welfare support. The outsized proportion of African-Americans and Latinos on the welfare rolls has always cast long shadows over TANF and many other public policies.

For decades, moms and children on welfare have played the role of disparaged stage extras in American politics. Conspicuously comfortable politicians offer all sorts of advice regarding how poor families should live their lives. It’s pretty disgusting to watch. These families deserve a lot better than they get.

[Cross-posted at The Reality-Based Community]

Back to Home page

Harold Pollack is the Helen Ross Professor at the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago.


  • vestigial on August 09, 2012 1:30 PM:

    On your states-rights hypocrisy: I've never heard a liberal argue a case exclusively or even primarily on it being a "states right issue." Liberals tend to argue on the merits -- right to die, marijuana legalization, americans with disabilities, gay marriage, etc -- while conservatives feel comfortable starting and ending the debate on state's rights.

    Further evidence: one of the most aggressively developed conservative judicial philosophy is about rolling back the commerce clause powers of the federal government. You simply will not see any similar liberal movement towards rolling back federal power in favor of the states.

    And this all started -- if you want to skip over the Civil War -- with the civil rights movement in the fities. You're doing your readers a gross disservice in the conversation by not reminding them that the federal government had to send in federal troops so that a black child could attend a local school. That most naked and transparent display of Federalist power to enforce equal rights in an unequal state is origin of the modern state's rights movement. Whatever they may say during a single debate, conservatives and liberals both know what is at stake and have picked their sides accordingly.

  • Frank Greco on August 27, 2012 11:25 AM:

    The question in my mind is how to take cogent arguments such as this past the barriers of prejudice, narrow or closed mindedness, and moral, if not intellectual, laziness.

  • Anonymous on October 20, 2012 1:42 AM:

    I am glad to find your impressive way of writing the post. Now it become easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thanks for sharing the post.

  • Jo on December 20, 2012 5:57 PM:

    You're an idiot not living in the real world. Your information is skewed, based on misinformation. You are correct in saying information is and can be skewed, but not in the way you believe.
    If you worked in the system that disperses those funds you would see how wrong you are.
    It is unfortunate, but our system of dispursement sucks!
    There are people who need assistance that do not get it, and there are those that are undeserved that do. Why? Because there are the liars and manipulators and those that are honest and truthful.
    A great many of these people do not want to work and are unwilling to work. They go to job interviews wearing short short and crop tops, because as long as they go to their interviews, they can collect. They are quite willing to make lots of babies but unwilling to work. They cry and complain about one disability after another. Bad backs (the most comon), ADHD (next big one), fear of crowds, dyslexia, and any number of contrived illness has countless people collecting. These same people have absolutely no trouble procreating. How do they manage that?
    Hookers can collect welfare, because they are not "legally" employed.
    Welfare is for people who are making an honest effort to find work. It is interim assistance. It is not for nor ever was designed for lifetime assistance.
    People huddle together in our offices telling each other the angles and services available, what to say and what not to say and we cannot call them to task about it, so don't tell the public, states don't have a right to govern. Welfare, in my opinion disables rather than enables. When people come in here demanding services and their sum total of disability checks in a family is two to three times what I make working and getting crapped on. Tell me things are not off kilter.
    Then there is the honest folk who are having a rough go of it, who come in when it's winter and there's no farming or construction work going on. I love helping them, because they do not abuse the system. They pay taxes and get crapped on for complaining and wanting justice. Are they the "conservatives" you speak of? I think they have more than a leg to stand on.