Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending

The Heritage Foundation ^ | 02-11-09 | Robert E. Rector and Katherine Bradley

[GOP_Lady]

A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.

* * *

Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year cost of welfare increases will not be $264 billion but $787 billion. This new spending will amount to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax in the U.S. The overall 10-year fiscal burden of the bill (added to the national debt) will not be $814 billion but $1.34 trillion. To this figure must be added the interest on the debt issues to finance this spending deluge.

[GOP_Lady]

http://www.heritage.org/

[GOP_Lady]

Libertarian, PING!

[GOP_Lady]

John Gibson interviews Robert Rechter of The Heritage Foundation:

http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2008/09/02/the-john-gibson-show/

John Gibson Radio - 2/12/2009
Download Podcast

Make sure you right clIck on DOWNLOAD PODCAST.

The interview starts approximately 21 minutes into the show.

[autumnraine]

It abolishes it altogether??

I heard it changed it or didn’t raise it, but wipes it out???

[GOP_Lady]

Robert Rechter in the interview at the link said that welfare reform done during the Clinton administration has been “murdered.”

[Palladin]

I wish an ungodly pox on Arlen Specter.

[freeangel]

“welfare reform”?

Did that confer any personal responsiblility to those were recieving it? I’m sure, just like that (obmas going to pay for my mortgage and gas) nutcase, this new form of welfare will absolve these parasites from ANY responsibility.

[A Strict Constructionist]

I’ studying (note tag line) for a small fee I will be glad to add to what I am planning for him.

I think this may be a winner of a business in this climate. I figure after the public gets a real look at the results of this bill I can go national with my Voodoo curses for politicians business.

[bamahead]

The language in the stimulus bill actually INCENTIVIZES the states to keep MORE welfare recipients on their rolls.

If they want federal aid dollars, that is...the incentive is to keep their rolls HIGH.

From The Heritage Foundation:

If the authors of the stimulus bills merely wanted to provide states with more TANF funds in the current recession, they could have increased funding in the existing contingency fund. But they deliberately did not do this. Instead, they completely overturned the fiscal and policy foundations of welfare reform.[2]

Writing in Slate, liberal commentator Mickey Kaus criticizes the stimulus bill welfare provisions as a "liberal conspiracy to expand the welfare rolls."[3] He laments, "Why use the aid specifically to encourage expansion of welfare? … At the very least the extra aid to the states shouldn't be triggered by caseload expansion. (You could, for example, give states aid in proportion to their local unemployment rate.)"[4] These are reasonable suggestions; the authors of the stimulus bills pursued a different policy precisely because they wish to overturn welfare reform and increase dependence on government.

I also found mention of it in The Atlantic:

States get "casework reduction credits" for the number of people they move off of the rolls; these credits help states meet a mandated 50% threshold for their TANF recipients to perform some type of work-related activity. The idea here -- if I'm reading the bill correctly -- is that the caseload reduction credit would effectively be "updated" to account for economic emergencies. State would get more welfare funds without letting their threshold dip below 50%. Again, I think this is what's happening. Not 100 percent sure.

It's this rule change that has raised the ire of conservatives, who argue that one of the main reasons why TANF is considered a success is because it removed the incentize for states to inflate their caseloads; it required them -- or incentivized them -- to push welfare receipients into the job force.

See Also - On The Dole Again

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185555/posts

[bamahead]

Thanks for this! I’m giving it a listen now :)

[Palladin]

You gave me an idea....I think I’ll make my own Obama voo-doo doll and stick a few pins in it every night. I’ll start with his ears, and work my way down.

Why not do one of Michelle, too? I’ll start pinning her fat ass first.

[GOP_Lady]

You're most welcome, bamahead. Keep up your excellent work for us! :-)

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Makes me wonder about the timing of the Porkulus. Notice that Hillary didn’t have to vote for it (and thereby vote to kill Bill’s welfare reform). Her replacement did. Did they sneak in the welfare changes after Hillary left the senate?

[Happy Rain]

Welfare lampreys are non-productive government employees.Since Obama is heralding in the era of “government is business and the business of America is government,” it stands to reason that any business should expand.

As long as their is one productive American to bleed into bankruptcy,the socialist agenda will never stop.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Ahhh...yuhhhh...you know,....sort of...spread the wealth around.... Like..... you know, bring those below you, up to your level.....give them the same chance you were given.

What’s wrong with that? It’s all about being fair and equal. UUmmm.....aahhh....yuhhh.....