New at Reason

David Weigel | August 22, 2006

Jesse Walker steps out of line to expose the state of welfare, 10 years after it was "ended as we knew it."

Comments

|8.22.06 @ 3:58PM|#

Great column. It's nice to see a highly critical assessment of the welfare state that doesn't rely upon contempt for the poor (or immigrants) to make its point. Just a broad, tight overview of the whole mess.

|8.22.06 @ 4:02PM|#

Sad, sad state of affairs. Fiscal conservatism is long dead.

Given the coming baby-boomer retirement (in 2007 the first baby boomers will be 62 and eligible for SS) and the fact that 60% of people age 55 have less than $50,000 saved, we can expect one of three scenarios.

1) Many boomers won't be able to afford retirement and will have to keep working well into their 60's and 70's.
2) Boomers will still retire but have to ratchet down their lifestyle by something like 40-50%.
3) Boomers will turn out in mind-blowing numbers at the polls and vote for any candidate who promises to raise taxes enough to prevent having to choose between 1) and 2).

Is there any doubt which of the three will happen?

|8.22.06 @ 4:34PM|#

If I had a choice between giving people a check because they're not working OR giving people a check for being employed by the TSA, I think I'd choose the former.

|8.22.06 @ 4:37PM|#

He said "hobo."

|8.22.06 @ 5:40PM|#

No, he wrote "hobo."

|8.22.06 @ 7:13PM|#

I worked for the state Department of Human Services for four years shortly after TANF and welfare reform began. I think welfare realignment is a more accurate term for what happened. As noted in the article, the numbers that left TANF for whatever reasons landed on a patchwork quilt of existing and new forms of assistance. It is those other programs that were infused with the "savings" from federal TANF block grants (spend it or you lose it) and subsequent increases in yearly funding which were then expanded to include more recipients that weren't previously eligible.

We had one program called FlexFunds that was used to purchase automobiles, drivers' licenses, auto insurance & repair, work tools, clothing, phone bills, rent and anything else you can think of that might help clients obtain or retain employment. The program was an alternative to TANF and the catch was that you had to waive the right to apply (or reapply) for TANF for so many months. This was one diversion that allowed the state to continue receiving federal funding and paying out welfare benefits while showing that it was dramatically reducing its TANF welfare rolls. While DHS officials and politicians are making speeches about how they are getting people from "welfare to work" you can imagine the number of increased applicants coming through the door when the state is basically giving away cars.

|8.22.06 @ 7:19PM|#

Hobo, She Wrote used to be Grandpa Okie's favorite TV series.

Robert|8.22.06 @ 7:22PM|#

Are there any countries making progress in this regard?

Jeff Smith|8.22.06 @ 9:20PM|#

This is a nice piece but there are a few details wrong about the programs. In particular, individuals did not move "from" AFDC/TANF "to" food stamps or Medicaid. Everyone on AFDC was categorically eligible for both food stamps and Medicaid.

Also, there is almost zero movement from AFDC/TANF to jail/prison. Almost all AFDC/TANF recipients are female, almost eveyone in jail or prison is male.

Another useful point, the EITC subsidizes both low wage workers and the firms that employ them as the existence of the EITC likely reduces the equilibrium wage in the low skill labor market. One argument for the minimum wage that is advanced by people who support it but also understand economics (a small but not empty set containing mainly moderate Democrat economists) is that the combination of the minimum wage and the EITC insures that the EITC subsidy gets captured by the worker rather than the firm.

Jeff

Jesse Walker|8.23.06 @ 2:47AM|#

Good point about my sloppy phrasing re: food stamps etc., Jeff ("from"/"to").

Re: prison: I tried to make it clear that the leftist argument that people are moving en masse from TANF to the penal system doesn't hold up. As you say, there probably isn't much overlap. My point was that the prisoners deserve to be included in any total accounting of people dependent on the state for sustenance. They usually aren't, because we usually ignore the welfare functions of the prison system and the punitive functions of the welfare system.

|8.23.06 @ 10:23AM|#

almost zero movement from AFDC/TANF to jail/prison

It is a small percentage that move from TANF to prison. However, there's a larger connection with correctional departments when you factor in those who move from prison to TANF; recipients on probation or in court ordered treatment programs; jailed fathers whose remaining family are on TANF; and single parent households not on assistance where incarceration leads to "child only" TANF cases where the payments usually go to a grandparent or other related caretaker and I believe are usually exempt from the 5-year limit that welfare reform placed on most TANF cases.

|8.23.06 @ 10:55AM|#

"For simplicity's sake, I won't even address the question of corporate subsidies. Suffice to say that penniless people aren't getting all or even most of the handouts."

At least you mentioned it; corporate welfare aggravates me at least as much as welfare programs directed toward individuals who may or may not (also) be "...shiftless, undeserving bums living high on the taxpayers' dime."

Robert|8.23.06 @ 2:34PM|#

So this analysis seems to bolster a conclusion that even when public (and hence public policy) pressure builds up, it tends to be relieved in ways that deflect from its apparent direction.

I'm still hoping we can find some country to model.

|8.24.06 @ 8:58PM|#

Scape: Don't forget TANF families whose fatherless children end up in prison.