THE NUCLEAR OPTION (via Jeff Guinn):

The Truth and Consequences of Welfare Reform (Jonah Edelman, Ron Haskins, and Mickey Kaus, Nov. 17, 2004, Slate)

From: Jonah Edelman
To: Mickey Kaus and Ron Haskins
Subject: Why Jason DeParle Gets It Right in American Dream
Posted Monday, Nov. 15, 2004, at 9:28 AM PT

Dear Mickey and Ron,

I'm happy that we can use Jason DeParle's recent book American Dream, a powerful and well-written account of the journey of three Milwaukee women in the wake of the 1996 welfare bill, as an occasion to discuss the welfare reform movement. Frankly, I'm glad welfare as we knew it ended. Despite my many misgivings about the 1996 bill, including its unconscionable cuts in food stamps and Medicaid for legal immigrants, what's to like about a system that gave mothers a small monthly check—often not enough to pay the rent—in exchange for not working and staying single?

One thing that has become abundantly clear since 1996, which DeParle points out, is that a great many welfare recipients could indeed work. In reality, a sizable percentage of welfare recipients, including Angie and Jewell, two of American Dream's three protagonists, were already working.

This simple fact makes a mockery of the liberal argument that it was either unrealistic or too harsh to make welfare recipients work for their check. It also gives the lie to the conservative argument that welfare recipients generally lacked the will to work.

For welfare recipients who were already working (perhaps the majority), and for many of those whom didn't work before the 1996 welfare bill gave states like Wisconsin control of their own welfare-to-work programs, all it took was a strictly enforced work requirement to move them off the rolls.

I was particularly struck by Angie's story. On welfare 12 years, with four kids and little work experience, Angie is the kind of person about whom liberals worried and conservatives fumed. Within six months, she got a job as a nurses' aide. In spite of the literally backbreaking work (nurses' aides have higher rates of occupational injuries than coal miners) and shifts that required her to either get up at 4 a.m. or return home close to midnight, Angie loved her job. And despite incredible turbulence at home, she kept it. In the welfare-to-work world, she's a success story.

What deeply troubles me is that Angie—who through hard work ended up near the top in earnings for former welfare recipients—barely ended up better off economically than when she was on welfare. Sure, Angie earned more income. But when you take into account her work expenses—which in her case didn't even include child care because she left her four children home alone—she either came out slightly ahead or it was a wash.

DeParle describes Angie's struggles in detail in this book. Her power is shut off three times in three years. She often runs out of food, which precipitates fighting in the house. She loses her health insurance. She's forever in debt and seriously behind on one or another bill. You can certainly fault Angie for some of her choices, including letting her crack-addicted cousin live with her for years despite repeated stealing. But by and large here is a woman who, according to the now familiar phrase, works hard and plays by the rules. At one point she says of herself: "I'm a good hardworking woman who can't seem to get up off the ground."

No welfare program can compensate for the destruction of the nuclear family.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 23, 2004 10:40 AM