Welfare Reform Bill

During President Bill Clinton's presidency, the Welfare Reform Act was passed in 1996. Prior to being elected President of the United States in 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned on a vow to eliminate the welfare program. Clinton was specifically referring to the federally funded programs, specifically the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFCD was a key component of the social safety net, which was intended to reduce or eliminate poverty and keep it from spiraling into abject misery and famine. The passing of the Welfare Reform Bill in 1996 brought to an end the AFDC program that had been in existence for a period of 60 years. This represented the most far-reaching transformations intended to help poor individuals and families since 1930s. However, the passing of this Bill was seen by some as an attack on the meager gains that the poor and working families had managed to achieve by 1970s (Bhargava 80). Instead of addressing the needs of the poor, the Democrats and Republicans were competing to determine who is tougher on poor people than the other one rather than on poverty (Rector 53). Some of the factors that made the Bill receive numerous criticisms from different quarters included, expansion of work requirements, cutting welfare rolls, and imposition of time limits. In addition, the provision of block grants to the states required that the states make determinations as to how the funds are to be used and the individuals eligible to receive various services and benefits. The proponents of the bill have proposed several arguments. However, there are counter arguments to each of these arguments.

Argument 1: Some felt that it hurt the poor; others thought that it helped and should result in improved lives for the poor (Rector 39). The proponents of the law argued that the welfare reform was increasingly moving families from welfare to work.

Counter 1: This law should be revised because it has several issues related with it. First, there is possibility that the law will affect the funding to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. There exists a possibility that different states might opt not to retain the level of funding and flexibility currently enjoyed in flexibility design. Secondly, there are growing concerns that some families have become worse off since the passing of this law because of the sanctions and time limits imposed by this law. The other concern is that too many children are being brought up by single mothers. The other issue involves whether enough money is being availed for child care, and whether there is need for more assistance to be provided to poor working families. The final concern is related to whether more initiatives are needed to help mothers qualify for better jobs. There is need to revise this law to address these issues.

Argument 2: Advocates of the bill say that the bill was designed for the purpose of assisting the needy families, reduce non-marital births, promote work and marriage to reduce welfare dependency, and encourage people to enter into two-parent families to support each other.

Counter 2: The above argument does not take into account the issues related to funding. Instead of serving its purpose, the bill has instead stretched the gap between the rich and the poor by transforming the ‘war on poverty’ to the ‘war on the poor’ (Rector 38). The setting of TANF funding levels was done when the number of welfare caseloads was higher compared to the present one. In addition, there are certain states that are currently not using their TANF fully. In their defense, states maintained that the Congress directed them to retain the surpluses of TANF funds when times were not tough. However, conflicts arose since the congress complained whenever the states did exactly that. TANF funding represents one of the programs that have lost much of their value over time. Its funding cannot achieve the aim that it was aimed to achieve since it has since fallen by more than a third since its creation. Instead of serving the purpose it was intended to serve of assisting the needy families, TANF funding is used by states to ease their budget shortfalls and fund other priorities of state politicians. Therefore, the funding was usually diverted to other uses.

Argument 3: The TANF block grant was apportioned to states based on the specific needs of individual states. This apportionment was based on a matching formula designed to encourage state spending.

Counter 3: The argument provided above represents one of the potential areas of conflict because the poorer states are allocated far fewer federal TANF funding per poor child compared to wealthier states. This type of apportionment does not work well with a fixed block grant. The situation has come to a point where the states use approximately one-quarter of the TANF funds they receive for cash assistance. For example, in 2015, for every 100 poor families with children, only 23 families were given TANF cash assistance (Rector 50). This number is a significant reduction compared to the number that received cash assistance in 1996, which stood at 68 families for every 100 families with children. This has subjected several families with children to abject poverty. As such, this points to the danger of block-granting programs that offer help to the families with children. Surprisingly, among all key safety-net entitlement programs, TANF is the only one that has been converted to a block grant by the policy makers. The issues discussed above can provide important guidance to other block-granting programs.

Argument 4: Under this law, proponents argue that states can transfer funds that were not used when the families left child welfare and other work supports to other uses. They further argued that states could increase their investment in work programs thus reflecting the need to provide work and welfare on temporary basis.

Counter 4: However, this has not been achieved. During TANF’s initial years, a strong economy and the shrinking in assistance caseloads was witnessed. The states used the flexibility allowed to them to redirect some of the funds that would previously be given to families to further welfare reform efforts. In addition, states went further and conveyed huge portions of these funds to other purposes, including filling loopholes in state budgets. In addition, the states started substituting the existing state spending. The problems arose during the 2008 economic crisis when states became unable to restore these funds to the purposes they were intended for – core reform services. To make up for this, various states began cutting down basic child care and assistance, and work programs. This led to the weakening of the cash assistance safety net for families. The extent to which TANF funds were used beyond the core welfare reform areas raises some serious concerns. As indicated by Bhargava, the factors that characterize states today are diminished value of to adequately serve the needy families, especially when these families have increasing needs due to the Great Recession.

Conclusion

The proponents of the bill have proposed several arguments. However, there are counter arguments to each of these arguments. Some felt that it hurt the poor; others thought that it helped and should have improved the lives of the poor. The proponents of the law argued that the welfare reform was increasingly moving families from welfare to work. Advocates of the bill argued that the bill was designed for the purpose of assisting the needy families, reduce non-marital births, promote work and marriage to reduce welfare dependency, and encourage people to enter into two-parent families to support each other. The TANF block grant was apportioned to states based on the specific needs of the state. This apportionment was based on a matching formula designed to encourage state spending. Under this law, proponents argue that states can shift funds that were not used when the families left child welfare and other work supports. Also, they also argued that states could increase their investment in work programs thus reflecting the need to provide work-focused and welfare on temporary basis.

Some arguments discussed above have been found to be flawed. Others point to the need to review of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program since it has not been able to achieve what it was meant to achieve. Despite being in force, families with children who are supposed to benefit from this fund have continued to suffer under extreme poverty. Therefore, extensive review of the program is required to align this program with the purpose it was supposed to fulfill.

Works Cited

Bhargava, Deepak. “Why Not a New War on Poverty?” In R. Rector’s Welfare to Work: Breaking the Welfare Cycle.

Rector, Robert. Welfare to Work: Breaking the Welfare Cycle.

Platt, Tony. "The state of welfare: United States 2003." Monthly Review 55.5 (2003).