Welfare Reform Failure

[Sugarbleus]

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0807-07.htm

Published on Wednesday, August 7, 2002 in the Philadelphia Inquirer

'Barn Door' Opens to Expose the Failure of Welfare Reform
by Sanford F. Schram

...............snip
For some time there has been a consensus on welfare reform. Liberals have joined with conservatives to attack what they saw as the problem of "welfare dependency." But liberals were likely to remain in the coalition only if there were sufficient supports to help single mothers make the transition from welfare to work in ways that would not put them and their children in jeopardy. They pushed for more child care, more opportunities for education and training, more allowances for taking care of very young and sick children, and more protections for the many women on public assistance who are leaving violent partners.

Liberals often did not get what they were seeking, but they continued to work to make welfare reform better, because they thought it was the right thing to do. A "personal responsibility" act that simply pushed single mothers into low-wage jobs without making any provision for the care of their children was a contradiction in terms - it was irresponsible. It was immoral. It still is, and now the evidence proves it.

For most of its five-year history, welfare reform has floated along garnering praise for reducing caseloads, increasing work and reducing poverty, when in fact most of those developments occurred because the economy created more opportunities for just about everyone in our society, including the poor. In case you have not noticed, that boom economy is gone. It may not come back again, at least not any time soon. With the economy in the doldrums, increased opportunities for the poor are long gone.

...................................snip
Yet this is what President Bush still insists we do. In a recent speech at a high school, he stated that single mothers on welfare who want to get an education that will help them find work at a decent wage are trying to cheat a system designed to enforce work. I wonder what the students who attended that school thought about their own educational pursuits when the President called people who want to go to college cheaters.

Welfare-reform reauthorization might well tweak the policies in place, but it will probably be too little, too late for the low-income families and children who need more than moral lectures about being personally responsible by working in whatever jobs the low-wage economy provides. The latest Operation Barn Door will not stop the immorality of a "reform" that abandons the most vulnerable members of society to poverty, homelessness and hunger.

Sanford F. Schram teaches social theory and policy in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College.
.......................................................

I remember Kucinich listening to a woman who had to go from welfare to work; she was remarking on how she was forbidden from going to college to further her education in order to land a better job, simply because she had used welfare/was a single mother.

There is another prohibition at work, at least in my area, that prohibits anyone who is "homeless" from entering and asking for assistance to enroll in college. Now, "homeless" doesn't necessarily mean a person with mental health and/or drug issues who unfortunately has to live on the street or a shelter. Homeless can mean you are a recently divorced woman/man who is suddenly without a place to live. Any adult who may be "couch surfing" from place to place because they can't AFFORD the rents in a particular area.

Even shelters for women and children, drug rehab facilities, battered women's shelters et al, will not let you stay there forever; certain facilities will not approve of a person going to college rather than working at taco bell. When one enters college it's for the long haul and you need to have a reasonabley stable environment to focus on your studies!

HOW does society expect these people get off the bottom?

[justgamma]

1. I know a person

who got approved for a school loan. She had dreams of getting a degree and a better job. Unfortunately, the loan was considered income and all her benefits were cut off. She had to decline the loan.

[Sugarbleus]

2. Yep, rather counter-productive isn't it!

Rethugs--->'Oh those lazy poor folks; why don't they get a job or pull themselves up by their own bootstraps'

(@#&%#@!*&%$#@)!!!!!!!

[bread_and_roses]

3. This article briefly summarizes what I have seen

...working with people with low incomes or recieveing Public Assistance. And it was not much better even when the economy was better. No matter how good the economy, it doesn't make a lot of sense to force the single mother of an infant/toddler back to work, when she has no car, no family support, and no way to get out of part-time minimum wage work. This "reform" did nothing but provide more cheap labor for our Corporate Masters. It has caused untold damage from the start, and I lay that suffering right at the door of Clinton and the other Dems who voted for this legislation.

[Sugarbleus]

4. Been reading a book: Part two of my welfare reform rant..

Much of this was covered in my original post but I just can't get over the data out there that shows what a messed up thing PRWORA is.
...............................................................
"LOST GROUND"; Welfare Reform, Poverty, and Beyond.

Edited by Randy Albelda and Ann Withorn. Contributing authors/scholars are about 14 in number.

I'm only about 1/4 through the book but it's FULL of details and arguments for why "Welfare Reform" was the wrong thing, done the wrong way, at the wrong time.

Welfare Reform aka PRWORA/Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act is a cruel hammer to be brought down upon single mothers. It was entered into with the help of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich using Charles Murray's notorious 1984 tract, Losing Ground: American Scoial Policy 1950-1980 as the lubrication to foist this reform upon WOMEN with children.

"Reformers" had been trying to change the attitudes towards women on welfare for decades. I didn't know it but we gave public assistance to women back in the 1890's; especially if they were widowed. See, women then were expected to "depend" on their husbands for support--though many women did work outside the home for meager wages to help support the family. If the husband died or deserted than the society felt sorry for the woman and allowed her some assistance, especially for her and any children. They were "deemed Deserving".

As Linda Gordon, Sociologist states: By devoting themselves to mothering, the female recipients were performing what God, nature, and society intended women to do and doing so, moreover, under difficult circumstances. Children were by definition deserving. Mother-children famiies certainly seemed as derserving of public support(ADC) as the elderly (Social Security Act).

Over time, the and leaving a whole lot of interesting history behind here, (you have to read the book)..attitudes changed from deserving to parasites. Women of color were the worst treated, as attitudes changed, until they stood up for their rights to benefits the same as any white single mother was getting. And yes, let's not leave out MEN'S role in changing these attitudes early on. They didn't want to pay to support "deserted women/children"..hence the campaign to reform/restrict welfare began a long time ago.

Then there's the business/corporations angle. As argued in this book, it goes like this. By subsidizing women to stay home with their children (as the RWer Xtians believe is normal and honorable work, in raising children)...this somehow created a baseline of poverty/income from which the working people wanted to stay far above. Working people competed for jobs based on their skills and experience and asked for the best dollar value for their labor. They expected raises like all of us would. The business world claimed that working people were asking for too much in wages and benefits and saw their bottom line shrinking. (poor babies)

Skipping ahead, outsourcing became the key to MORE PROFITS for the boss--cheap labor overseas. Then by forcing desparate women/men off of welfare, here comes a whole new group of people who are forced to take whatever job they can get. Voile' the bosses have a new pool of cheap labor, right here at home, from which to drive down wages and increase their profit margins. If this former welfare recipient won't do the job, oh well, the next one will. Whippppeeeee

Not only did "reformers" force women off welfare into work, they did NOT provide adequate helps such as JOB TRAINING/higher education or quality job placement so that the woman could REALLY improve her income stream/lifestyle. Childcare is rare, housing costs have soared and many of the former "helps" AFDC (now TANF) recipients got were also cut off or hung over their heads to FORCE them to comply with a job, any job or else. Can you say: "Servitude"?

Working for minimum wage or just above DOES NOT IMPROVE THE LIVES OF SINGLE MOTHERS thrown off Welfare. They are STILL struggling and some worse than others. I heard a woman at a Kucinich rally talk of how she was not allowed to go to college when on TANF. She wanted to know if he would change that policy if elected. I seem to recall a statement made by * that people who go to college instead of to work after assistance is removed are cheating the system (words to that effect)WTF???!!

Words like those just make me more convinced that tossing people off of assistance before they are ready, IS the cat-out-of-the-bag statement for the pro CHEAP LABOR lobby as well as the ANTI WOMEN'S HEALTH, WELFARE, AND RIGHTS MOVEMENT!

It was stated in the book that many business people felt that raising children wasn't worthy enough--ONLY PAID labor was worthy of respect. The reformers urged women/men to get into "JOB READINESS PROGRAMS" so they could guilt trip them into believing that raising children wasn't a worthy cause and that they needed to set an example for their children. (As if prosperous women don't stay home with their kids) :eyes:

[Dark]

5. People usually don't get divorced and become homeless.

Tipically, it's a woman fleeing domestic violence who becomes homeless, not a divorcee.

Although children, I believe, coprise more of the homeless population than women.

[Pthalo BlueMoon]

6. WTF?

Bush calling welfare mothers who want an education cheaters?!

How the hell else are they going to climb out of poverty?

What a sad, sad, state of affairs...