Author Topic: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform  (Read 2208 times)

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« on: June 05, 2007, 10:36:45 AM »
The Rise Of the Bottom Fifth
How to Build on the Gains Of Welfare Reform

By Ron Haskins
Tuesday, May 29, 2007


Imagine a line composed of every household with children in the United States, arranged from lowest to highest income. Now, divide the line into five equal parts. Which of the groups do you think enjoyed big increases in income since 1991? If you read the papers, you probably would assume that the bottom fifth did the worst. After all, income inequality in America is increasing, right?

Wrong. According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study released this month, the bottom fifth of families with children, whose average income in 2005 was $16,800, enjoyed a larger percentage increase in income from 1991 to 2005 than all other groups except the top fifth. Despite the recession of 2001, the bottom fifth had a 35 percent increase in income (adjusted for inflation), compared with around 20 percent for the second, third and fourth fifths. (The top fifth had about a 50 percent increase.)

Even more impressive, the CBO found that households in the bottom fifth increased their incomes so much because they worked longer and earned more money in 2005 than in 1991 -- not because they received higher welfare payments. In fact, their earnings increased more in percentage terms than incomes of any of the other groups: The bottom fifth increased its earnings by 80 percent, compared with around 50 percent for the highest-income group and around 20 percent for each of the other three groups.

When considering this explosion of work among those in the bottom fifth, remember that they all had children to take care of, that more of these households were headed by single mothers than households in the four better-off groups, and that they had the least money to, say, fix their cars or tide them over if they got sick. Those who do not admire this performance should live for a year on $16,800 and see if they could increase their earnings by 80 percent.

My rendition of the CBO findings to this point should make Republicans happy: Low-income families with children increased their work effort, many of them in response to the 1996 welfare reform law that was designed to produce exactly this effect. These families not only increased their earnings but also slashed their dependency on cash welfare. In 1991, more than 30 percent of their income was from cash welfare payments; by 2005, it was 4 percent. Earnings up, welfare down -- that's the definition of reducing welfare dependency in America.

But now consider that the next-biggest increase in income for the bottom group was from the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a program that, in effect, supplements the wages of parents with low incomes. In addition, most of the children in these families had Medicaid coverage and received free school lunches and other traditional social benefits. In other words, this success story is one of greater efforts to work more and earn more backed by government benefits to improve living standards and, as President Bill Clinton used to say, "make work pay."

This increase in earnings and total income by low-income families is the biggest success in American social policy of recent decades. So why not broaden it? Two policy innovations, bipartisan in conception and implementation, should be pursued.

First, the type of work requirements that characterized the 1996 welfare reforms should become routine in all large-scale welfare programs, notably food stamps and housing. Rather than allowing able-bodied adults to receive benefits without making a reciprocal commitment to increase personal responsibility, federal and state policy should require serious effort to work. Both housing and food stamps now have only modest work requirements.

Second, Congress should continue the trend in federal policy to improve programs that help low-income workers such as child care and health care. The experience of the 1990s shows that the majority of poor and low-income workers are able to land jobs that pay only about $8 per hour. Most are high school dropouts, and very few have education beyond high school. Especially in the absence of a return to married-couple families, millions of young adults with children will probably not be able to earn enough to support themselves and their families without taxpayer help.

It is better for them, for their children and for society if these adults continue to work and have their poverty-level earnings supplemented by the EITC and other programs. Indeed, it would be better for everyone if Congress ended earmarks, agriculture subsidies and ineffective programs such as Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act and used the money saved to increase support for low-income working families by expanding the EITC (especially for poor men who work full time), as well as child care and health-care coverage. Without increasing the deficit, Congress could augment the progress being made by low-income families, help them increase their standards of living and income mobility, and further strengthen the politics of personal responsibility. This should be an agenda on which Republicans and Democrats can unite.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2007, 01:00:52 PM »
"My rendition of the CBO findings to this point should make Republicans happy: Low-income families with children increased their work effort, many of them in response to the 1996 welfare reform law that was designed to produce exactly this effect. These families not only increased their earnings but also slashed their dependency on cash welfare. In 1991, more than 30 percent of their income was from cash welfare payments; by 2005, it was 4 percent. Earnings up, welfare down -- that's the definition of reducing welfare dependency in America."

His rendition blows. 

Read the report itself.  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8113/05-16-Low-Income.pdf

Check out the graph on the first page.  Look at how the income rises from 1991 to 2000.  In 2000 it levels off and declines.

What happened in 2000?

Poverty rates generally declined throughout the Clinton Administration.  Under the Bush administration, Poverty has increased.  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

How does that square with the conclusion that the working poor are doing just wonderfully b/c of welfare reform?

It doesn’t.  There must be another explanation(s).

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2007, 01:39:02 PM »
Read the report itself.  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8113/05-16-Low-Income.pdf

Check out the graph on the first page.  Look at how the income rises from 1991 to 2000.  In 2000 it levels off and declines.

What happened in 2000?

Poverty rates generally declined throughout the Clinton Administration.  Under the Bush administration, Poverty has increased.  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

How does that square with the conclusion that the working poor are doing just wonderfully b/c of welfare reform?

It doesn’t.  There must be another explanation(s).

Actually, I googled the cbo info and checked the site for the report that Haskins' commentary was based off of.  I ran across the Washington Post article and posted it, because I didn't think too many folks would read it. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2007, 01:43:28 PM »
Actually, I googled the cbo info and checked the site for the report that Haskins' commentary was based off of.  I ran across the Washington Post article and posted it, because I didn't think too many folks would read it. 
Studying wealth inequality is a hobby of mine.  I think class war is very real and is currently being won by the elites of this country. 

I appreciate you starting this thread.  It's good stuff.

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2007, 01:52:01 PM »
Studying wealth inequality is a hobby of mine.  I think class war is very real and is currently being won by the elites of this country. 

I appreciate you starting this thread.  It's good stuff.
Thanks, Decker.

Would you agree that the elites of this country includes even the same individuals who argue wealth inequality?  I mean, if you look at Hollywood and the views that the "stars" present in the public's eye as if they were truly looking out for the "little guy", aka from the middle-class on down to the most unfortunate.  In my opinion, this is the definition of what an elitist is.  Meanwhile, they spend frivously on things that don't mean a hill of beans.  It just bothers me that the depiction of the wealthy is some overweight, middle-aged, white Republican.   That's why I thought the article kind of split things down the middle.   

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2007, 01:57:25 PM »
Thanks, Decker.

Would you agree that the elites of this country includes even the same individuals who argue wealth inequality?  I mean, if you look at Hollywood and the views that the "stars" present in the public's eye as if they were truly looking out for the "little guy", aka from the middle-class on down to the most unfortunate.  In my opinion, this is the definition of what an elitist is.  Meanwhile, they spend frivously on things that don't mean a hill of beans.  It just bothers me that the depiction of the wealthy is some overweight, middle-aged, white Republican.   That's why I thought the article kind of split things down the middle.   

I will agree with that 100%. 

Tre

  • Expert
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16549
  • "What you don't have is a career."
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2007, 03:54:49 PM »

Since when did welfare payments become 'income'?

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2007, 06:55:52 AM »
Thanks, Decker.

Would you agree that the elites of this country includes even the same individuals who argue wealth inequality?  I mean, if you look at Hollywood and the views that the "stars" present in the public's eye as if they were truly looking out for the "little guy", aka from the middle-class on down to the most unfortunate.  In my opinion, this is the definition of what an elitist is.  Meanwhile, they spend frivously on things that don't mean a hill of beans.  It just bothers me that the depiction of the wealthy is some overweight, middle-aged, white Republican.   That's why I thought the article kind of split things down the middle.   
That's interesting.  I think that "elitest" in the largest sense refers something like an aristocracy where monied interests perpetuate themselves through nepotism and manipulating political infrastructure to inure to their own benefit.

The idea that Hollywood stars speak out against wealth inequality while seemingly (and hypocritically) living like kings doesn't bother me too much.  Here's why.  Raising the issue of inequality on a popular stage is important--the aristocrats generally would not do that.  Living well while professing a concern for wealth inequality is not the same as manipulation of the tax code (all taxes not just income tax), business deregulation, marginalization of unions etc.

Hollywood stars may appear elite by their lifestyles, but practically speaking, they have no power, other than the airwaves, to make a difference.

The richest 1% own 1/3 of the total wealth in the economy.  http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/wp2005_10.pdf

The top 5% own almost 60% of our total wealth and the top 10% owns about 70% of total wealth in the US.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

That kind of concentration of wealth inexorably leads to excess political influence far beyond anything you or I could dream of. 

That's antithetical to the values underlying our democratic republic.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2007, 10:32:58 AM »
That's interesting.  I think that "elitest" in the largest sense refers something like an aristocracy where monied interests perpetuate themselves through nepotism and manipulating political infrastructure to inure to their own benefit.

The idea that Hollywood stars speak out against wealth inequality while seemingly (and hypocritically) living like kings doesn't bother me too much.  Here's why.  Raising the issue of inequality on a popular stage is important--the aristocrats generally would not do that.  Living well while professing a concern for wealth inequality is not the same as manipulation of the tax code (all taxes not just income tax), business deregulation, marginalization of unions etc.

Hollywood stars may appear elite by their lifestyles, but practically speaking, they have no power, other than the airwaves, to make a difference.

The richest 1% own 1/3 of the total wealth in the economy.  http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/wp2005_10.pdf

The top 5% own almost 60% of our total wealth and the top 10% owns about 70% of total wealth in the US.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

That kind of concentration of wealth inexorably leads to excess political influence far beyond anything you or I could dream of. 

That's antithetical to the values underlying our democratic republic.

I don't listen to those Hollywood folks.  They don't put their money with their mouth is.  The "rich" contribute far more to society through charitable contributions and providing jobs than a handful of Hollywood actors. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2007, 10:40:46 AM »
I don't listen to those Hollywood folks.  They don't put their money with their mouth is.  The "rich" contribute far more to society through charitable contributions and providing jobs than a handful of Hollywood actors. 
I don't know where this preoccupation with Hollywood comes from.  Who cares what actors think?  Comparing actors to business moguls is not apt anyways.

I don't care what Sean Penn thinks about the body politic.  I like his movies.

Just like I don't care what Tom Selleck thinks...hell, I loved Magnum PI...;....BeachBum PI?

What do you do for a living again?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2007, 10:45:27 AM »
I don't know where this preoccupation with Hollywood comes from.  Who cares what actors think?  Comparing actors to business moguls is not apt anyways.

I don't care what Sean Penn thinks about the body politic.  I like his movies.

Just like I don't care what Tom Selleck thinks...hell, I loved Magnum PI...;....BeachBum PI?

What do you do for a living again?

:D  I've been to the Eve Anderson Estate (Magnum's house).  Beautiful property.  If I had about $10 million to spare I'd buy it.   :) 

I am my kid's dad and a full-time whipping boy for my wife.  In my spare time I help run a business and teach part-time.   

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2007, 10:53:41 AM »
:D  I've been to the Eve Anderson Estate (Magnum's house).  Beautiful property.  If I had about $10 million to spare I'd buy it.   :) 

I am my kid's dad and a full-time whipping boy for my wife.  In my spare time I help run a business and teach part-time.   

That's cool.  Hanging out at Robin's Nest. 

Funny, I got the same type of job w/ my wife, hence my recent landscaping exploits.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2007, 11:00:15 AM »
That's cool.  Hanging out at Robin's Nest. 

Funny, I got the same type of job w/ my wife, hence my recent landscaping expoits.

And people think men run the country.   :)

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2007, 06:57:15 AM »
That's cool.  Hanging out at Robin's Nest. 

Funny, I got the same type of job w/ my wife, hence my recent landscaping exploits.
LOL, don't even get me started on the landscaping exploits!  ;D 

You know you've had it when the wife says, "I like the way our neighbor has planted their flowers...we ought to do something like that"  hahahaha

or even better (or worse, I should say)  when she starts a sentence with "we ought to..."   ;D :D

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2007, 06:59:46 AM »
That's interesting.  I think that "elitest" in the largest sense refers something like an aristocracy where monied interests perpetuate themselves through nepotism and manipulating political infrastructure to inure to their own benefit.

The idea that Hollywood stars speak out against wealth inequality while seemingly (and hypocritically) living like kings doesn't bother me too much.  Here's why.  Raising the issue of inequality on a popular stage is important--the aristocrats generally would not do that.  Living well while professing a concern for wealth inequality is not the same as manipulation of the tax code (all taxes not just income tax), business deregulation, marginalization of unions etc.

Hollywood stars may appear elite by their lifestyles, but practically speaking, they have no power, other than the airwaves, to make a difference.

The richest 1% own 1/3 of the total wealth in the economy.  http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/workingpapers/wp2005_10.pdf

The top 5% own almost 60% of our total wealth and the top 10% owns about 70% of total wealth in the US.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

That kind of concentration of wealth inexorably leads to excess political influence far beyond anything you or I could dream of. 

That's antithetical to the values underlying our democratic republic.
I wonder what the statistics are amongst that same group as far as annual gratuitous giving. 

I don't care what Hollywood says about politics either, but the media sure does.  And if this is all the media tends to show, then wouldn't you agree that there are alot folks in this great land of ours who base their entire political outlook based on what they see/hear from their favorite celebrities?

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Interesting Article on Welfare Reform
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2007, 07:24:58 AM »
I wonder what the statistics are amongst that same group as far as annual gratuitous giving. 

I don't care what Hollywood says about politics either, but the media sure does.  And if this is all the media tends to show, then wouldn't you agree that there are alot folks in this great land of ours who base their entire political outlook based on what they see/hear from their favorite celebrities?
It's worked for Rush Limbaugh.

To me, comparing the personal virtue of donations with opinions on governmental policy are two different things. 

Cults of personality exist in Hollywood, religion, sports, politics....if people take their opinions from those types that's their option.

About the landscaping comment of yours, that was pretty damn funny.  The only way I was able to salvage some dignity was to buy a big roto-tiller called "Earthquake" and just destroy my yard for being there.