Poverty persists despite drop in welfare rolls FWD

Tom Boland (wgcp@earthlink.net)
Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:26:09 -0800 (PST)


***********************************************************
HOMELESS PEOPLE'S VIEWS, News, Alerts, Actions & Research
4,000+ ONLINE posts by or via homeless & ex-homeless people
HOMELESS PEOPLE'S NETWORK http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn
***********************************************************

http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/COMMENT/t000016804.html
FWD  Los Angeles Times - Tuesday, February 23, 1999
     Column Left / Robert Scheer

     END OF WELFARE ISN'T THE END OF POOR PEOPLE

     Success of reform has been measured by
     reducing the rolls rather than reducing poverty.

     By ROBERT SCHEER
                    
Isn't it great how we've solved the welfare problem? That's the one thing
that President Clinton, Congress and even the media agree on. Gosh, those
welfare rolls are declining so fast that we're just going to run out of
poor people.

But where have they gone? Are they better or worse off? Since most of the
welfare population was composed of single mothers and their children, it
would seem to be morally relevant to at least inquire as to how those
children are doing. The answer is, not very well.

Despite a decade of sustained economic growth and low unemployment, the
percentage of children living in poverty--one in five--is the same as it
was in 1989. Those census data are the best we have, but they're a year
old.

We don't have more recent data because folks who are running welfare reform
at the federal and state levels act as if they don't really care what
happens to those women and children once they're pushed off the rolls. Out
of sight, out of mind is the rule of welfare reform. Success has been
measured by reducing the rolls rather than reducing poverty.

Consequently, we have only fragmented and largely anecdotal information on
what happens to those thrown off what was once a federally monitored
welfare system and who now experience the vicissitudes of a hodgepodge of
state programs. Yet what we do know is alarming.

Clinton has pointed to the Wisconsin program as a stellar example of the
success of welfare reform. Indeed, Wisconsin has been the nation's model,
and welfare rolls in that state have experienced the most impressive
decline: a staggering 75%, including mothers of 3-month-olds who have been
forced off welfare.

But in a recent survey, the state conceded that for most who left welfare,
getting low-paid jobs did not leave them better off. Despite costing
taxpayers more to run the new program, the survey found that most of those
families were not economically better off.

No matter, those most enthusiastic about welfare reform argue, the fact
that the mother is working means she's a better role model for her
children. But last Sunday's New York Times exposed the shocking condition
that young children, many abandoned by their hard-pressed mothers, find
themselves in as a consequence of the highly touted "Wisconsin Works"
welfare reform: "Unwilling or unable to work for public aid, many of the
state's most troubled mothers have lost their benefits, often en route to
drug clinics, jail cells, shelters or the streets. And grandmothers . . .
--angry, worried, or plain exhausted--are being left to care for the
children abandoned along the way."

"Wisconsin Works seems to have worked magic." reported a correspondent for
London's Observer newspaper. "But behind the slogans a more disturbing
picture is emerging, of mothers denied benefits becoming so desperate that
they are abandoning their children either to the government or to
grandparents, of church hall basements overflowing with the mothers and
youngsters sleeping on aerobics mats."

The problem is not with the goal of moving people off welfare into decent
jobs, but rather the lack of jobs that lift a family out of poverty.


In a national survey, the Children's Defense Fund, with which Hillary
Clinton has long been associated, revealed the majority of jobs found by
former welfare recipients paid well below the poverty level. How can she or
her husband continue to endorse a program that pushes millions of children
deeper into poverty?

To be fair, there are several measures pending that the president supports
that could move us further toward requiring jobs to pay a living wage. One
is an increase in the minimum wage and another is an expansion of the
earned income tax credit.

But the bottom line is that what now passes for "welfare reform" represents
the abandonment of millions of children and we are, as the president is
fond of pointing out, in the best of times. When the economy dips, as it
surely will, the risks for those and many other children will dramatically
increase.

Clinton is correct in stating that we now have the smallest welfare rolls
in 30 years, close to what they were in the 1960s before Lyndon Johnson
launched his "war on poverty." There are still 36 million Americans living
in poverty, 40% of them children. That is unconscionable in a time of wild
run-ups of the stock market wealth of the "other America." But instead of a
war on poverty, Bill Clinton has settled for a war on welfare recipients,
and that is hardly the same thing.

* * *

Robert Scheer is a Times contributing editor

END FORWARD

**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.**




HOMELESS PEOPLE'S NETWORK <http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn>
4,000+ POSTS by or via homeless & ex-homeless people
Nothing About Us Without Us - Democratize Public Policy