Reason.com
New at Reason
Cathy Young programs the Wayback Machine and scopes out the wrongheaded predictions of welfare reform doubters, in a tribute to a full decade of successful reform.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|8.29.06 @ 9:48AM|#
I wish just one doomsayer from 1996 would come to the table and say, "I was wrong about welfare reform."
Every man must have a dream.
|8.29.06 @ 10:00AM|#
Jose that will happen right after all the people who were convinced that Ronald Reagan was a senile cowboy beant on starting a nuclear war against the peaceful Soviet Union come forward and admit they were wrong.
|8.29.06 @ 10:06AM|#
Jose and John,
What a charming little circle jerk you guys have going so early in the morning.
|8.29.06 @ 10:08AM|#
budgie, way to have nothing constructive to say. So if theirs is a circle-jerk, can we call yours mental masturbation?
|8.29.06 @ 10:17AM|#
Budgie,
Judging from your post, I guess we touched a nerve and know of at least one person who won't be coming forward to admit they were wrong.
|8.29.06 @ 10:24AM|#
"Ronald Reagan was a senile cowboy beant on starting a nuclear war against the peaceful Soviet Union"
Randian,
Is John's statement constructive? I thought it was sort of moronic because the fact of Reagan's senility is not really under dispute anymore.
John,
I had no comment about Clinton's welfare reform at the time except to say that it seemed quite a gambit for someone from the democratic party.
Also, I would add that at least I was referring to previous statements. The mental masturbation came in the first post.
|8.29.06 @ 10:30AM|#
Budgie, he was talking about "at the time of Reagan's presidency, many people thought he was a mentally unstable cowboy etc." Are you claiming that he's been mentally unfit all along? Very confusing. And the first two posts have a point; I certainly haven't seen the millions starving in the street like some anti-reform hyperbolists were predicting.
|8.29.06 @ 10:35AM|#
Budgie,
A lot of Reagan's political enemies said he was senile and beant on starting a war. History has shown both of those things to be completly false, just like it has shown the dire warnings about welfare reform to be false. I don't think either group, which has a lot of common members, will be apologizing and admitting they were wrong anytime soon.
|8.29.06 @ 10:37AM|#
budgie, way to have nothing constructive to say. So if theirs is a circle-jerk, can we call yours mental masturbation?
Heads up everyone, only constructive posts allowed on H&R going forward. Mmmmm, and no circle jerks either. That ought to slash the number of posts by at least 50%. Oh, also, if your post displays multiple times thanks to the crappy server, that will piss off Ayn too, so better knock that off.
Looks like Budgie's not the only one who got up on the wrong side of bed today.
BTW, Reagan was indeed growing senile, even while he was in office. People we know who knew them slightly in Santa Ynez said he was just the nicest guy, but that he'd forget where he was in the middle of conversations and stuff. They assumed he was under constant medical care of the sort that can juice you up and take you down as needed. ie, on his ranch, they let him relax somewhat, because it was his vacation. But back at work, he was taking meds that would help him stay more sharp. That was their theory, anyway. Not the sort of thing you can ask directly, of course. =)
And yeah, they thought Nancy was a highfalutin bitch. Not really a rancher's wife, ya know.
|8.29.06 @ 10:49AM|#
People we know who knew them...They assumed ...That was their theory...
That is some downright reliable information bee, thanks for that impeccable source.
And I was just pointing out the absurdity of claiming that all posts have to be constructive, which is what budgie seemed to be implying.
|8.29.06 @ 10:49AM|#
Randian,
Nobody starves in the streets in the U.S. I would grant that some people are malnourished, but there is always a dumpster to dive into for food. Who made that prediction? Smells like straw to me.
John,
"History has shown both of those things to be completely false."
Really? WTF!!! He was senile for a good chunk of his presidency as demonstrated by his inability to recall even the most rudimentary facts during something call the Iran Contra trial. It's no crime to be senile, mind you. I'm only mentioning is because you brought it up. Really poor choice of examples. If you stop inventing historical fantasies, I'll stop commenting on them. And buy a fucking dictionary or start using spell check. The four letter word is bent not beant!
|8.29.06 @ 10:51AM|#
OK, here's an attempt.
I thought this issue was a great example of the deep effects of triangulation. Since Clinton was responsible for the reform, I remember watching the political conventions in the following election & being amazed that nobody was talking about it at all. Probably the most important piece of recent legislation, and nobody was talking about it. The Republicans couldn't use it as a wedge & the Democrats who opposed it were too busy getting their guy elected to remind anyone about it.
Now, if Clinton were a Republican, I speculate that the Welfare issue would have been the main topic of that election season. The Democratic convention would have been a parade of sympathy cases of mothers who were starving because of the mean old Republicans. And, I think, we would actually have a different view of the effects of the reform. There would be much more of a perception that it had failed many of the weakest members of society.
|8.29.06 @ 11:23AM|#
Yes the predictions were wrong, but so what? They were spewed under the premise that the federal government was actually going to get out of the business of creating lifelong wards. Instead 10 years later there is still a class of people institutionalized to be devoid of common sense sufficient enough to know to head for high ground when the flood waters rise. (That is not an indictment of the citizenry, rather of the political class that enslaves them).
Given the size of the federal budget today, and the layout of transfer payments, in whatever guise, by whatever alias, who's kidding who? Clinton's signature ended welfare the way we knew it the same way that the Republican majority brought smaller government. A pox on both their houses.
Warren|8.29.06 @ 11:46AM|#
In the past week I've seen discussion panels at Heritage and CATO, and at least a dozen articles. Cathy's is the least edifying. If it was the only thing I read, I'd have no problem with it. But in a sea of welfare reform argle-bargle she has nothing to add, so why bother.
|8.29.06 @ 12:01PM|#
Sigh.
I remember hearing the hue and cry in 1996 by those people saying the welfare reform act would result in families living in the streets, the end of the world as we know it, etc. The real story was that there were (and are) entrenched bureacracies dependent on large welfare rolls. These bureacrats (and their advocates) fought the legislation tooth and nail. It was damn unusual for the bill to pass. Ten years later, that the legislation actually accomplished something is near a miracle.
The real circle jerk, Budgie, is the well-lubed stroking of the professional class that derives its living from "the poor."
|8.29.06 @ 1:38PM|#
The fact of the matter is that some people have changed their minds. They have seen that Reagan was not batshit crazy and that welfare reform was not a bad thing.
On another front things have not gone well. There is still an almost uniformly believed myth that Reagan cut social programs and spending. This lie is constantly repeated by liberals wanting to make Reagan look bad and conservatives wanting to make him look good.
|8.29.06 @ 1:56PM|#
"There is still an almost uniformly believed myth that Reagan cut social programs and spending."
I have that argument all the time and always get shouted down. It is just hopeless. My new favorite to drive liberals over the edge is to talk about how George Bush is a big spending liberal and the second coming of Lyndon Johnson. Liberals just explode when told that. After you point out the facts, the huge increases in spending, the Ted Kennedy No Child Left Behind Act, the prescription drug giveaway, they usually have some sort of an emotional breakdown.
|8.29.06 @ 5:00PM|#
Since you are surely consistent with your political labels, John, you must think Bill Clinton is a small-government conservative, right?
|8.29.06 @ 5:19PM|#
full decade of successful reform.
I doubt it; the last time I researched it, spending on welfare continued to increase w/o regard for any reform at all, and continues to do so; they just waste the money slightly differently.
Most welfare money (~70%) doesn't go to welfare recipients; it goes to employees of state and federal welfare programs and welfare contractors (most of the well-known organizations which used to be charities). Real welfare reform would largely mostly of firing these people.
|8.29.06 @ 5:20PM|#
full decade of successful reform.
I doubt it; the last time I researched it, spending on welfare continued to increase w/o regard for any reform at all, and continues to do so; they just waste the money in a slightly way.
And that's easy to do since most welfare money (~70% - I'd be happy to see better estimates) doesn't go to welfare recipients; it goes to employees of state and federal welfare programs and welfare contractors (most of the well-known organizations which used to be charities). Real welfare reform would consist mostly of firing these people.
|8.29.06 @ 6:35PM|#
Jose,
"I remember hearing the hue and cry in 1996 by those people saying the welfare reform act would result in families living in the streets, the end of the world as we know it, etc."
And I remember hearing the hue and cry in 1993 by those people saying that Clinton's tax and buget program was going to result in families living the street, the end of the world as we know it, etc.
The difference being, there is nobody today attempting to reverse welfare reform, while virtually every single economic conservative in the country continues to insist that having a tax and budget system comparable to that which Clinton proposed is going to destroy the economy.
I don't think it's too terribly surprising which side learned from experience, and which clings to its discredited predictions.
|8.29.06 @ 8:33PM|#
For what it's worth, the device used by Mr. Peabody and Sherman was the "WABAC Machine". It's labelled as such in one or two of the cartoons.
larry
|8.29.06 @ 10:10PM|#
Hell, forget welfare..just become a famer - no risk or nothing..just good connections:
800 Million for the Needy
So when are thet gonna send me money when my little business has a sales drought?
|8.29.06 @ 10:12PM|#
Hell, forget welfare..just become a farmer - no risk..no nothing..just good connections...:
800 Million for the Needy
So when are theu gonna send me money when my little business has a sales drought??
|8.29.06 @ 10:54PM|#
Reintegrating men into families will not end poverty or solve all social problems, but it will be a major step in the right direction.
And how much will that cost? I understand the reasons behind the promotion of stronger families and how that could help TANF recipients but the implementation seems to produce more bureaucratic programs that are often religious in outlook. Any family planning that TANF mothers receive already covers marriage and why a solid parental relationship is good for the family. From my experience working with TANF households I think most of the men who father the children in those families fall into two general categories. One are those who are already involved and give varying degrees of support but remain officially absent so that the mother and kid(s) stay eligible for benefits. Child Support Enforcement usually changes their outlook on parental responsibilities. The other group are those whose only contribution so far has shown that they are able to produce children they are incapable or unwilling to care for. Forcing TANF mothers into a "required marriage" with this second group of men will most likely result in larger TANF families, not better ones.
A major reason the fears of destitute families and abandoned children never materialized in the 90's is that the cash benefit TANF pays isn't enough to support a family and most of the mothers have other sources of income (legal and illegal) that keep their families going. Even without the cash benefits they may still be eligible for food stamps, housing, medical and daycare assistance. Many of the mothers that left TANF were already working and the closer monitoring and work requirements that came with the "reform" in 1996 shook out those who were using TANF as supplemental income but weren't dependent on it.