Host: Jack Beatty
Senior editor, The Atlantic Monthly
Danziger is a Professor of Social Work at the Univeristy of Michigan, where he is also the Director of the Program on Poverty, the Underclass, and Public Policy. He is the co-author of America Unequal
(Harvard University Press, 1995) and the co-editor of Confronting Poverty
(Harvard University Press, 1994).
A professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center,
Edelman recently resigned his post as assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services in protest over the welfare-reform bill signed into law last year by President Clinton.
His article about that bill, "The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done," appears in the March, 1997, issue of The Atlantic.
A senior policy analyst of welfare and family issues for the Heritage Foundation, Rector's comprehensive welfare plan served as the basis for the "Real Welfare Reform Act of 1994."
Turner is currently the director of capacity-building for Wisconsin Works, the state of Wisconsin's welfare-replacement program, much of which he designed. Prior to working for the state of Wisconsin, Turner was the director of family assistance at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President George Bush.
Visit our previous Roundtable "Immigration: One Nation Inhospitable?"
What will politicians do now that they don't have
"welfare" to kick around anymore? The issue has always seemed to the more
realistic among us to be mostly about winning elections. As middle-class
incomes have gone flat the appeal of the politics of welfare has grown, and the
prevailing resentment has been, "We work hard; why can't they." Ronald Reagan
exploited this sentiment in 1980, with his anecdotes about "welfare queens";
Bill Clinton exploited it in 1992, in vowing "to end welfare as we know it"
(which is one campaign promise he has kept).
The welfare bill Clinton signed last summer does end welfare as we know it. It
is no longer a federal entitlement. It is now to be run by the states. National
politicians have lost the best issue of the last two decades. Until now, by
denouncing shiftless welfare recipients they could send mixed signals -- racial
signals foremost, but also class signals to the bulging numbers of low-wage
workers whose dignity rests on not taking welfare -- that were untoppable.
Here are several questions to get us off and running. As we discuss them let's
remember that there were real problems with welfare, but let's not lose sight
of the politics that drives the issue.
- What were the real problems with welfare? Name a few. How will the system
created by the new welfare bill mitigate or worsen them?
- I was under the impression that real welfare reform, which involved
creating public-service jobs for unemployable recipients, would cost more money
than the old system. I thought this was the lesson of the Wisconsin reforms.
Yet this new welfare law will supposedly save billions. How did that happen?
What happened to the Wisconsin model?
- Clay Shaw, the Florida Republican whose committee framed the welfare bill,
has likened recipients to monkeys in a zoo, dependent on taxpayer-supported
bananas. What's the evidence on dependency? Just how many welfare recipients
were chronically dependent? Is this drastic change in the system aimed at just
a small number of recipients? In other words, have a few bad cases made the new
law? (Also, what does it say about the new law that its framer can speak of
welfare recipients in that way?)
- The New York Times Magazine ran a story last fall saying that an
academic named David Ellwood is responsible for the new law. What was his role?
Welfare has made careers in academia; what role did welfare research play in
the new law? If the answer is "none" or "very little," what does that tell us?
- Since the entitlement character of welfare has been replaced by lump-sum
funding, what will happen when a recession hits, state revenues fall off, and
more people sign up for welfare? If Federal funding is fixed, but the
population needing it is increasing, what gives? What was the logic of the
block grant idea?
Among other things, I hope that we'll be able here to move beyond vague
discussion of political design and the balancing of the budget and instead will
focus on providing a cogent analysis of the new welfare law as a reform.
Where do we go from here?
-- Jack Beatty
Introduction and opening questions by Jack Beatty
Round One -- Posted March 12, 1997
Round Two -- Posted March 25, 1997
Copyright © 1997 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights