- The Washington Times - Sunday, March 24, 2002

The historic welfare-reform bill passed in 1996 by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by President Clinton during the summer of that year's presidential campaign will expire Sept. 30. Thus, Congress and the Bush administration are now working to re-authorize welfare-reform legislation. The White House submitted its bill to Congress in late February.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, who as governor of Wisconsin led the states in reforming welfare, will be the administration's point man. Mr. Thompson testified last week before the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. In both settings, Mr. Thompson was sharply criticized by Democrats, who complained that the administration's proposal to increase the work requirement for welfare recipients failed to include sufficient funding to pay for child-care expenses.
The first thing to note about this dispute is how different it is from the debate that occurred in 1996 between liberal Democrats, on the one hand, and Republicans and moderate Democrats, on the other. Six years ago, liberal Democrats in Congress and their allies from self-styled child-advocacy interest groups relentlessly predicted utterly apocalyptic consequences from the welfare-reform legislation that eventually became law.
Then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who should have known better, called the reform law "the most brutal act of social policy since reconstruction." Marian Wright Edelman, who as the president of the Children's Defense Fund has never known any better, declared that Mr. Clinton's signature on the law "will leave a moral blot on his presidency and on our nation." Her husband, Peter Edelman, who resigned in protest from his high-level job at the Health and Human Services Department, called the new law "awful" policy and predicted it would do "serious injury to American children." Then-Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun asserted that the bill would "do actual violence to poor children, putting millions of them into poverty who were not in poverty before." Needless to say, the Democratic congressional leadership, including Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, opposed the bill.
Of course, none of those predictions came true. In fact, as Robert Rector and Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation have documented, since welfare reform was passed: (1) There are now 4.2 million fewer people living in poverty; (2) 2.3 million fewer children live in poverty today, with the largest decreases occurring among black children; (3) welfare caseloads have been reduced by half, while employment among the most disadvantaged, least employable groups (including never-married mothers, high school dropouts and young single mothers) has increased substantially. By all accounts, the effects of welfare reform have been astoundingly successful, having completely contradicted the dire predictions of liberal congressmen and their allies.
The second thing to note about the current debate is that, compared to 1996, liberal whinings today are relatively mute. At last week's hearings, Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus and Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee complained that funding for child care was inadequate to reach two major goals of the administration. The president's plan and a separate plan proposed by moderate Democrats in the Senate, it's worth noting would increase from 50 percent today to 70 percent by 2007 the percentage of adult welfare recipients required to work. Both plans would also increase the weekly work requirement from 30 hours to 40 hours, which, according to the Bush plan, could include 16 hours of education and/or training.
Now, regarding funding available for child care, the arithmetic seems rather straightforward. Remember, caseloads have plummeted by half, and yet the administration has offered to continue providing states with the same annual block grant of $16.6 billion that the federal government provided when caseloads were twice as high. Surely, there is enough funding in this block grant to accommodate increased child-care demands for a plunging caseload.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide