Walking Back Welfare Reform (Welfare reform is a success. Some Democrats don't like that.)

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Bush administration has finally started to get feisty, maybe because it realizes that Republicans can't be on the defensive on everything domestically. First, there was the homeland-security-department veto threat last week (let's hope it's serious). The other day it was a full-throated attack on the Senate welfare-reform bill. This is not only good politics, but the right position on the merits. The Baucus bill is a disaster. Here is the syndicated column I wrote about it a few weeks ago. — Rich Lowry

Someone should ask liberals what it is about falling black- child poverty rates that they don't like.

Welfare reform was the most spectacular public-policy success of the 1990s, prompting single mothers to join the work force in droves and hence improve the lot of their children. But Congress is preparing, in effect, to send these mothers back onto the dole.

Montana Sen. Max Baucus's Work, Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids Act represents all the best thinking on welfare policy circa 1973.

"It overturns or takes big, gnawing bites out of all the principles of the 1996 reform," says the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, one of the chief architects of that law.

The template for welfare reform was set by Wisconsin in the early 1990s, when the state began demanding that all welfare recipients work. During the decade, Wisconsin's welfare rolls fell by about 90 percent, and child poverty by about half.

The 1996 federal law pushed states toward the Wisconsin "work-first" model. It encouraged states to reduce their caseloads and get welfare recipients in jobs, while creating a five-year time limit for receipts of federal welfare payments.

Nationwide, the caseload fell by about half, as the employment rate for the most disadvantaged single mothers soared by somewhere between 50 percent to 100 percent. The black-child poverty rate dropped by a third, reaching its lowest levels ever.

This was not a function of the booming economy. Since 1950, according to Rector, there have been nine periods of rapid economic growth in the United States, but the welfare caseload fell in only one of them — the 1990s, after passage of welfare reform.

But the 1996 law needs a tune-up. Its work requirements have become obsolete, as states have met the bill's mandates by cutting caseloads, leaving them free to do with the remaining welfare recipients as they please.

His bill supposedly requires 50 percent of welfare recipients to engage in work, education or other activities by 2005, but this requirement is so shot through with exemptions — about 20 states would be relieved from it altogether — that it is meaningless.

The bill would make Wisconsin and New York City's successful experience with compelling community-service work in exchange for welfare benefits almost impossible to duplicate. Such community-work programs would be subject to the full panoply of onerous federal employment rules, effectively deterring states from trying them.

When President Clinton attempted a similar move after the 1996 law's passage, he had to back down under a chorus of complaints that he was trashing welfare reform.

Baucus also eliminates the 1996 law's highest-profile provision — the five-year time limit on federal handouts — by allowing recipients to receive federal housing vouchers beyond the deadline.

Passed out of the Senate Finance Committee with the support of liberal Republican Olympia Snowe and nominally conservative Republican Orrin Hatch, the Baucus bill is a return to the pre-1996 model of welfare: handing benefits to single mothers while giving them only the mildest of nudges toward voluntarily participating in training and education programs.

The best antidote to poverty, of course, is not to have single mothers in the first place. To that end, President Bush has proposed $300 million for a model program encouraging marriage, but Baucus has gutted the proposal by making anything — housing grants, transportation assistance, etc. — count as marriage promotion.

Baucus proposes his own $150 million model program — to pay single mothers to provide day care for their own children under age 2. In other words, the old federal handouts to pay — and reward — single moms for being single moms.

If Bush wants to change the subject in Washington from the corporate scandals, this retrograde bill offers a perfect opportunity. Bush should threaten to veto it, because — despite what Senate liberals might think — a falling black- child poverty rate is worth preserving.

It casts a funny light on the Left's claim to be "for the people," doesn't it? Of course, to folks on that side of the spectrum, intentions and emotions have always trumped actual results, so it's not that much of a surprise.

William Simon, in his book A Time For Truth, noted that the typical liberal wants more to feel good and look good than to really do good. He painted social-welfare liberalism as a form of auto-therapy, a mechanism for personal expiation of guilt, or for elevating oneself morally over others. Thomas Sowell continued this line of reasoning in The Vision Of The Anointed.

It's sad, really. An awful lot of children of welfare mothers have had it tough because a coterie of Manhattan and Hollywood leftists needed to salve their consciences about being prosperous. The least we can do is to keep it from happening again.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

A child is created by one man and one woman. Therefore, welfare to children subsidizes the defaulted obligation of both men and women. When the mother is supporting the child alone, welfare subsidizes the father's defaulted portion.

I agree with you, but on some points I don't. First, not every single mother is on welfare, and likewise many dad's pay support. Regarding this particular article, and related issues, yes there are many mothers and fathers who have defaulted. There are also many young women who see single motherhood as an "out"(consciously and subconsciously). If they have a child as a single mother they can go on welfare and get their own apartment, groceries, medical coverage, etc. Dad is just a vehicle to get where they want to be, and it suits dad just fine. Meanwhile, in many instances, these young women have escaped their families dysfunctions. Unknowingly, and vice-versa in some cases however, the responsibility and joy can turn into a burden and the cycle of dysfunction is carried on.

My point is if the government didn't create an "escape" route for these young women (teenagers, too often)that included more innocent victims and pawns (children born to them), then we'd have far fewer irresponsible single mothers out there. Should we have a temporary saftey net? Sure, but short term only, not to be used accessively.

If one realizes how difficult it is to raise a child alone, economically, emotionally, physically, spiritually, intellectually, in reality every single area of one's being, then the numbers would be reduced. Would the children suffer? They already are, and don't kid yourself that they aren't.

Once again, it take TWO people to create new people not one. Why do you only call women irresponsible?

For every "single mother" there is a single father out there. Every single time. We just can't seem to accept biology. Women CANNOT create a new child by herself. Not ever, not even once in 10,000 years has this ever happened.

So, if the government didn't create an "escape route" for irresponsible men as well as irresponsible women who co-create a child, and required BOTH parents to support and care for their kids we'd have far fewer irresponsible people overall.

We're not going to solve anything by unilaterally blaming only half the parties involved.

The welfare policies of the '60s encouraged welfare moms to have 5 kids by age 18 to max out government benefits. The same policies would have stripped the "single mother" of those benefits if the sperm donor(s) were permitted to live in the same household. The government created the rules of the game to build a society of welfare "moms" and their copious offspring. It was bad policy then. It is still bad policy. It is wrong to foster generations of taxpayer supported bastards. The parents of the "welfare set" are the bottom of society. Uneducated, unemployed burdens on society. The liberal politicians insist on penalizing the productive parts of society to cultivate the dregs. It is time that this part of society take responsibility for itself. Even the lowest paying jobs deliver income to the earner more efficiently than benefits dispensed from taxpayer coffers by the parasites working for government welfare agencies.

Government needs to remove the incentive to create more bastards. For those who already exist, the benefits should be made contingent upon DNA verified identification of the bio dad and mom. The DNA verified parentage must be held accountable for support of the offspring. It is THEIR responsibility, NOT the taxpayers.

So, if the government didn't create an "escape route" for irresponsible men as well as irresponsible women who co-create a child, and required BOTH parents to support and care for their kids we'd have far fewer irresponsible people overall.

I acknowledged the obvious in my previous post. Yes, this creates an irresponsible attitude in men as well. Consider, however, that the image that you are portraying is that of a "couple". Too often these women are impregnated by a "boyfriend" who has several other women on the line and are not willing to or just will not commit to a relationship with one, be it inside or outside of marriage. If they are in an exclusive relationship, too often it's just about sex anyway. Women who allow themselves into these kinds of relationships have a lot of issues, but subconciously or even conciously, they want to have a baby because their lives are devoid of a deep and meaningful relationship and they want someone to love them. Notice I didn't say they wanted someone to love, but rather they want to feel the joy of someone who cherishes them. But, that is unfair to a child as that twisted thinking is unhealthy for everyone and a cycle is continued. Boys throughout their lives, but especially in the adolescent and teen years, learn to be men by the influence of the men in their lives. If their only example of a man is someone who comes to service their mother on occasion, guess what? The cycle continues for them as well.

So I lay the blame on women because they are ultimately responsible for their ability to reproduce. Okay, men can wear a condom, but why do you think sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise despite increased awareness and the availability and free access of said items?

Too often these women they will continue to have a small child in the home so that they won't be taken off welfare. Yes, they continually have children outside of marriage, to collect welfare (don't tell me that this is not the reason as I've met many of these women). But I will say this, the safety net of welfare also exists because it is extremely difficult for women to get off of welfare as they don't have job skills, they don't have daycare, they don't have medical insurance. Many times it's because they are drug addicts or they don't know life with structure as they've never had it, or seen it. Thus we have kids who are entering gangs because there is a sense of belonging and it's a way to survive.

There it is in its full glory. I knew it was coming. Blatant bigotry. Sexism. "Boys will be boys" and we should just let them. Males are ultimately NOT responsible even though everyone knows biologically how babies are made.

You know what, until we drop that BS nothing will change. Either BOTH parents are responsible for chidlren they co-create, or no one is. Period.

And I agree kids need a father. However, only a father can render a child "fatherless". If he's not there, HE is responsible for not being there for his kids! What you are trying to do (again) is make women responsible not only for her own actions, but men's actions as well. Well guess what, most women are there. Present and accounted for. If the father is NOT there, he is responsible for his own abscence and his own abandonment of his own kids. Not one else is responsible for a person being a.w.o.l. except that person. So once again this is using illogic to to excuse men.

So much for Conservatives believing in personal responsibility. What part of "personal" don't they grasp? When push comes to shove and we have to face real facts, all of a sudden it always comes down to blaming women unilaterally for conception. Even in the face of science which proves this is not true! How far are we willing to go to give men a free pass on responsibility? Refute biology?

We (society) could decide to make both parents equally responsible for children they co-create, but we don't. This is nothing short of immoral and it certainly doesn't help children. Maybe we are lying about wanting to help children? Maybe what's more important to us is to let one of the parents off the hook or more importantly, to demonize women unilaterally.

Also this is the same exact logic that people in some parts of the world are using to bury a woman up to her waist and stone her for adultery (as evidenced by a child) while letting the other party, the man, go unpunished. It's sexism pure and simple, different only by degree. The logic is exactly the same, yet we think of ourselves as so superior to these cultures.

Many times it's because they are drug addicts.

So? So are many of the fathers. What's your point? And of course, WHY would a man procreate with drug addict? Could it be because he is irresponsible and just doesn't give a damn about the consequences of his actions? And why should he care when he knows society refuses to hold him equally accountable?

You seem to grasp that there is a cycle going on here but you cling onto the age-old fallacy of men as innocent bystanders in procreation and therefore blameless in the consequences.

We cannot solve a problem by refusing to face up to half of the reasons why it exists.

You seem to grasp that there is a cycle going on here but you cling onto the age-old fallacy of men as innocent bystanders in procreation and therefore blameless in the consequences...Either BOTH parents are responsible for chidlren they co-create, or no one is. Period.

You seem to misunderstand me, as you are making assumptions that I clearly did not state. Let me clarify for you, since your focus is not on this issue but on the dificiencies you think that I possess as an individual. You couldn't be more wrong about what you think is my stand with the men as I am in no way condoning the acts of these fathers. Personally, I think any person who abandons their children is beyond a scumbag. What I am saying is that you can't make a man stay, and somewhere in the recesses of their psyches these women know it too (it's more than obvious when a relationship is based solely on sex) and they are making horrible decisions for themselves and their children because either they don't know any other way to survive, or they don't care. Likewise the men are making horrible decisions and should bear responsibility to the children that they help to conceive. But when they, be it the man or the woman, just wants to get laid with no responsibilty attached,(either by lack of contraceptives use or by bringing children into this world outside of a stable relationship) then yes both parties should bear the responsibility. Unless they give the child up for adoption, someone will care for the child and meet their daily needs. It is usually the woman who takes on this responsibility. Women and men know the consequences of unprotected sex, since the woman has to carry the child (sorry but the men never do this) the women often get the responsibility for raising the child.

My previous post stated that some women conciously make this decision, regardless of the stability of the relationship so that they can have their own apartment, food, and medical care. It is a cold hard reality, and not something my sexist mind made up, because I've known women who are very honest about their reasons behind the decisions that they have made and they have also told me that the reason they pick these absent men as partners is so that they can get some action themselves, have children when they want to, and yet they don't have to put up with living with a man. Other women make this same decision on a less conscious level. I am not saying that all single mothers on welfare behave in this manner, notice in all instances I have said - some. This is more often than not the case with the generational welfare recipients, and the long term welfare recipients.

In my previous post I mentioned a lot of different aspects to this issue, but you continue to focus on one issue only, that of the women as innocent bystander victims. However, most women bear the brunt of the responsibility based on the decisions that they make, because they are the one to carry the child, as many options are open to them. I am not condoning the acts of these men, but likewise I am not feeling sorry for women who put themselves and, the children they bring into this world, in these situations. Unless they are raped, they have a lot to say in the decision process of their actions and the result of these actions. The only innocent bystander victims in this situation are the children. But once a child becomes an adult they are then responsible for making adult decisions. I am focusing on the sad facts and state of welfare in our country, most single parents on welfare are mothers, plain and simple. Obviously there are always exceptions, and I've known women who are the exception, and I've also known women who are not. Likewise, I've known men who are responsible caring fathers, and others who are total losers that create children and walk away without a care, and there are also men in between - they send support but never see their children. I've known men who are solely responsible for raising their children and women who are absent. I would be surprised if there isn't a situation that I haven't known or seen first hand. 99% of the time, when there are children outside of marriage, single mothers are raising them. However, there is an alarming increase of grandparents raising their grandchildren.

My posts are based on facts and direct knowledge. You can romanticize the plight of these people all you want to, but the "poor unfortunate" scenario only exists in rare instances and are usually the folks that use welfare out of short term need and only as a stepping stone on their way to an independent future. However, that is not the issue related to the original posted article and that is why my focus has been on the welfare abuser.

By the way you can't call me a bigot as I've never made a bigoted statement. My posts have never been about race, as all of the situations that I bring to your attention are based on various races, as I've worked with whites, blacks, hispanics, native American, native Alaskan, and various Asian groups.

What I am saying is that you can't make a man stay

So? What is the point of saying this. If you can't make a man do something, then why do we assume we can make a woman do something? Is it because women are easier to target for punishment?

My point is that society demonizes single mothers. But these are the women who did not abort. And they did not abandon their kids. They procreated the same as the man did, but then they commit the "crime" (in society's eyes) of sticking around afterward.

Look at it this way. The kids are here. The woman is providing some level of care. If she were not there, we would have to pay to have someone take care of the kids in the foster care systme (many kids are not adopted). Therefore, the mother is SAVING the taxpayer some money.

As far as who is responsible for the kid being here in the first place, that "blame" is shared by both biologcial parents. Therefore, we should address the problem before conception occurs. We don't like to do that because that would include talking about male responsibility which is a taboo subject in our culture. We prefer to wait until the "problem" is already upon us, and demonize the person who is present and accounted for, and totally ignore the parent who a.w.o.l.

Read this thread. Read ANY thread about welfare. The woman is blamed. Men are completely off the radar screen as being part of the problem. How does this square logically with the facts of procreation? It doesn't.

What "punishment" are they getting? They commit acts of irresponsibility and then expect the taxpayers to take care of them. These same taxpayers who work hard for their money, pay for their groceries, housing, insurance, as well as pay babysitters, just to make ends meet. As I've stated all along both the men and the women are irresponsible. The courts need to go after these fathers and demand child support and follow up on it. Too often the courts don't, or women aren't reporting who the father is - to protect him, ironic isn't it? Yet it does happen.

If it's harder to raise kids because you can't get a free long-term ride from the taxpayers then people will have to think twice about the decisions that they make. Adoption was in full force in the 50's - 60's because parents who couldn't care for their children or made irresponsible decisions and couldn't financially support their children put them up for adoption. They did what was best for thier children, not for their own selfish reasons. Guess what? Young people made a point to be more responsible or face the harsh consequences that life hands us.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.