Yes, food banks are growing, and welfare requirements are more stringent. Just
because the economy is doing well and there are less people collecting welfare
doesn't mean that there are less poor people. It just means that poor people
are having a harder time making ends meet and that tax dollars are going
elsewhere than helping poor people, such as supporting all those compassionate
conservatives. In answer to another comment by [I am sorry I forget the
person's name] compassionate conservatism has a long history in the usa -- you
can trace its roots to the 1820s and 30s when the first conscious shift of blame
for poverty was placed on the poor people themselves by founding fathers in
boston, new york, and philadephia. maggie coleman
Ken Hanly wrote:
> But aren't the number of foodbanks and other supplements to welfare
> growing? Are the rules for eligibility more stringent?
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joel Blau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 10:29 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:6934] Re: Re: Welfare Reform, from the Horse's Mouth
>
> These outcomes are perfectly consistently with a 1997 special report by the
> Council
> of Economic Advisors on this issue.. That study reported that economic
> growth
> accounted for 44 percent of the decline, while 31 percent of the decline
> derived
> from changes in the law. An appendix to the report, however, admits that
> changes in
> the law could account for as little as 13 percent. Hiliary Williamson
> Hoynes at
> Berkeley has done some useful work on this issue. She concludes that a 10
> percent
> increase in employment growth combined with a 5 percent increase in real
> earnings
> would lead to a 16 percent decline in the welfare caseload.
>
> Joel Blau
>
> Margaret Coleman wrote:
>
> > A couple of comments on the excerpts Max sent us from the prez report....
> > 1. Mathematica (a fairly conservative (imho) think tank/number crunching
> group)
> > came and presented an unpublished paper to us census dweebs about a month
> ago.
> > They compared the effect of the reduction of caseload under afdc (old cash
> > benefits) and tanf (new cash benefits) rules during the recessionary late
> 80s
> > and the expansion of the 90s. Their main conclusion was that the new
> rules
> > explain less than 10% of the reduction in case load, while the
> expansionary
> > economy explains about 40-50%. The rest is unknown.
> > 2. I suspect that a huge portion of the non-collection of benefits like
> food
> > stamps is due to a lack of information as states rush to reduce case load
> so
> > they can keep the block grant monies to spend on 'other' items.
> > 3. Mathematica and the Urban Institute have both sent people to the field
> in
> > different states and the administration of new rules is tremendously at
> odds
> > with the rules as written -- in short, no one actually has any real clue
> at all
> > as to how many people are eligible, how many people are collecting, and
> what has
> > happened to leavers.
> > 4,,,,, factoids: There is a provision in prowra (new rules) which gives
> > additional block grant money to the states which reduce unwed births the
> most
> > WITHOUT use of abortion (perhaps an aspirin held tightly between the
> knees?).
> > Personally, I read this as an incentive to discourage legal abortions.
> AND in a
> > study about school enrollment (which I am authoring, though it is not
> 'official'
> > yet), using the survey of income and program participation (SIPP), there
> has
> > been a small, but clear increase in the number of people not receiving
> benefits
> > but living at the lowest end of the income spectrum between March, 1996
> and
> > March, 1998. maggie coleman
> >
> > Max Sawicky wrote:
> >
> > > "Two of the most impressive achievements of the past 8 years have been
> the
> > > reduction in the number of Americans receiving welfare, and the increase
> in
> > > the numbers of current and former welfare recipients who are working. .
> .
> > >
> > > . . . The 1996 reforms have undeniably been successful in reducing the
> > > number of people receiving welfare. But reductions in caseloads are not
> the
> > > only measure by which to judge the reforms: the well-being of the
> millions
> > > of former welfare recipients is at least as important. Much of what we
> know
> > > about outcomes for welfare leavers comes from studies undertaken in
> > > individual States. . . .
> > >
> > > . . . Welfare leavers are unlikely to thrive in the workplace if they
> are no
> > > better
