Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
They can afford to increase welfare -- I potentially see it as another slush fund a/la the social security trust fund. They increase the monies available, but get rid of the eligible population, so the money is there for the use of the politicians. cute. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bush and Ron Dellums (Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Nathan Newman wrote: > . . . > (I would also note that much of the increase in domestic spending under Bush was > due to cyclical spending increases due to the early 90s recession in combination > with the explosion in medical inflation in those years.) The increase could well have had political roots in the business cycle, but it has mostly held up since then as a share of GDP. The decline under Clinton (and Gingrich) since 1992 is slight, gradual, and smaller than the increase under Bush (w/Dellums assistance, if you will). To me this suggests non-cyclical factors, rather than automatic changes in spending due to program provisions caused by the business cycle. At same time, and in the same terms (share of GDP), Federal taxes are as high as they've ever been. Clinton used the new revenue and defense cuts for deficit reduction. There are a few bright spots, but they are small in the grand scheme of fiscal retrenchment. Cheers, Max
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Fellows, Jeffrey wrote: > AFDC has been renamed. It is now Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), > or some such phrasing. I understand that federal block grant payments to > states for TANF are larger than the former federal AFDC funding. > However, I believe that the actual distribution of money payments to > families and individuals is lower under TANF than AFDC. Is there anyone > on the list who can confirm my understanding? This year's TANF grant is bigger than prior years' AFDC grants, but because it is a block grant it will grow increasingly inadequate as the size of the potential clientele grows and when the economy enters recession. I don't know if benefit levels are higher or lower now, since they are under the purview of the states under TANF. The Urban Institute has a mega project to study all this and an elaborate web site. At any rate, benefit level changes must be considered in light of changes in eligibility, and particularly state policies to push people off the rolls through the use of sanctions and diversions into penny-ante programs of one sort or another (e.g., 'job clubs'). The real crunch in TANF will be when the economy turns sour, when the time limits begin to take greater effect, when Federal mandates for work quotas become more binding on states, and as the social costs of deliberate caseload reduction become more manifest. The TANF clientele is being pushed into the labor market. The silver lining is that this affords an opportunity for them to be organized as workers, rather than for welfare rights. The former means application of fair labor standards, rights to organize, minimum wage, etc.; the inadequacy of low-wage incomes for financing family living expenses might successfully be pursued if add-ons to wages such as health care, day care, etc. are demanded for people as currently employed (or looking for work) workers, rather than welfare recipients. The AFL has made some noises about this but not done much so far. I'm also told that some unions have signed up people in the new work programs but have failed to do anything for them. MBS
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Max B. Sawicky wrote: >The spending here does not include EITC, which >I took note of above. One can see from Nathan's >numbers that the better part of the public assistance >increase was due to the EITC and SSI, the latter >focused on the elderly and reflecting health care >cost pressures, to some extent (2/3rds of SSI $$ is >for indigent old folks in nursing homes). SSI is also apparently a refuge for people kicked off welfare and "home relief"/General Assistance. In New York City, the number of people on SSI has increased almost as much as the numbers on AFDC & HR have declined. Doug
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
With the Clinton budgets, one has to mind the shells that are empty, not just the one with the pea. The decline in defense and the increase in the EITC are significant, as Nathan says. A better view of the other stuff, or the whole picture, is obtained by considering the trend in domestic spending as a share of GDP, or to be precise, total outlays less defense and net interest payments. This peaks in 1980, takes a long but not enormous dip over the 1980's (e.g., less than 2% of GDP), and is restored by that great man George Bush to pre-Reagan levels. (One must understand that to Nixon and Ford we owe the greatest growth in this variable.) In contrast, apres Bush such spending slides down and is projected to continue so in the present golden age of budget surpluses and tobacco settlements. The spending here does not include EITC, which I took note of above. One can see from Nathan's numbers that the better part of the public assistance increase was due to the EITC and SSI, the latter focused on the elderly and reflecting health care cost pressures, to some extent (2/3rds of SSI $$ is for indigent old folks in nursing homes). The point about the GOP attack on the EITC is well-taken, though we do have a breather this year. Nathan Newman wrote: > > GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS > > . . . Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
AFDC has been renamed. It is now Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), or some such phrasing. I understand that federal block grant payments to states for TANF are larger than the former federal AFDC funding. However, I believe that the actual distribution of money payments to families and individuals is lower under TANF than AFDC. Is there anyone on the list who can confirm my understanding? Jeff -- From: Louis Proyect To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 10:33AM At 07:01 AM 4/8/98 -0700, you wrote: > > >GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS > >- Nathan Newman > > >Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare >"deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and >gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead >not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good >news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. This is obscene spin-doctoring on behalf of the reactionary Clinton. The problem we are facing is cutbacks in state aid to needy families. It is state funding not federal funding that goes into the AFDC program, which has been overthrown. Any increase in federal funding is more than offset by state cuts. The reason that these state cuts have been made is because the Democratic White House functions as an extension of the Reaganite attack on the safety net. Clinton offered no effective oppositon to the assault on AFDC for the same reason that he pushed so hard for NAFTA. He is a tool of big business. Louis Proyect
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
At 07:01 AM 4/8/98 -0700, you wrote: > > >GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS > >- Nathan Newman > > >Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare >"deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and >gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead >not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good >news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. This is obscene spin-doctoring on behalf of the reactionary Clinton. The problem we are facing is cutbacks in state aid to needy families. It is state funding not federal funding that goes into the AFDC program, which has been overthrown. Any increase in federal funding is more than offset by state cuts. The reason that these state cuts have been made is because the Democratic White House functions as an extension of the Reaganite attack on the safety net. Clinton offered no effective oppositon to the assault on AFDC for the same reason that he pushed so hard for NAFTA. He is a tool of big business. Louis Proyect
Bush and Ron Dellums (Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
From: Max B. Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >A better view of the other stuff, or the whole >picture, is obtained by considering the trend in >domestic spending as a share of GDP, or to be >precise, total outlays less defense and net interest >payments. This peaks in 1980, takes a long but >not enormous dip over the 1980's (e.g., less than >2% of GDP), and is restored by that great man >George Bush to pre-Reagan levels. (One must >understand that to Nixon and Ford we owe the >greatest growth in this variable.) I would note that the 1990 budget bill under Bush was, indeed, an important corrective to the worst cuts under Reagan, but with Ron Dellums retirement, I thought it was worthwhile to praise Dellums for his crucial role in that bill. After Bush and the Congressional leadership had agreed on a bill with too many tax benefits for the wealthy, Ron Dellums led progressive Democrats in opposing the compromise bill (supported by some renegade Republicans who refused to approve any tax increase). By leading the defeat of the compromise bill, Dellums helped force through a much better bill that modestly increased taxes on the wealthy while restoring some spending. (I would also note that much of the increase in domestic spending under Bush was due to cyclical spending increases due to the early 90s recession in combination with the explosion in medical inflation in those years.) --Nathan Newman
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
Max Sawicky: >This peaks in 1980, takes a long but >not enormous dip over the 1980's (e.g., less than >2% of GDP), and is restored by that great man >George Bush to pre-Reagan levels. I always suspected Bush was more of a Keynesian than is Clinton. John Gulick John Gulick Ph. D. Candidate Sociology Graduate Program University of California-Santa Cruz (415) 643-8568 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Category 1992 1998Change >- - - >Defense 298,350 264,112 -34,238 >Housing assistance 18,904 28,752 +9,848 >Food and nutrition assistance32,622 36,137 +3,515 >Public Assistance & Related 43,353 72,497 +29,144 > (Numbers from Office of Management & Budget) > -I assume that these numbers are inflation-adjusted (while the second column -represents projections or estimates as 1998 isn't over yet), but shouldn't -we also divide each of the last three rows by something like "the number of -poor people"? The numbers are not inflation-adjusted so the drop in defense spending was actually larger in real terms (as were cuts in a host of international affairs spending) and the real increases in social spending were smaller. But the inflation rate in the 1960s is comparable to the 1990s, so the percentage comparison basically holds. As to comparing to the poverty rate, that would be a useful comparison, although this spending has increased even as poverty rates have fallen with the business cycle. Of course, this shows the danger of measuring it against poverty rates as well, since one of the worst aspects of the 1996 Welfare Bill is that its block grant approach means that spending right now is actually higher than it would have been under the old AFDC formula, but in case of recession will end up being lower. Raw numbers in billions of dollars spent is not perfect as a measure but it is a useful piece of information, which is why I concentrated on it in this post. -Also, as Louis points out, we should be adding federal, state, and local -budgets for these matters. That is a useful additional piece of information, but if we compared states response to their new freedom, it would not support Louis's ideology that their is no difference between Democratic and Republican parties. In California, we almost got passed a bill that was, in many ways, BETTER than the old AFDC system; unfortunately, our Republican governor used his veto power to force through a worse bill. BTW one of the best fighters in our legislature on the welfare issue, State Senator Barbara Lee, was just elected to the US Congress as the successor to Ron Dellums from the Oakland-Berkeley district. ---Nathan Newman
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
-Original Message- From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare >"deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and >gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead >not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good >news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. Louis Proyect wrote: -This is obscene spin-doctoring on behalf of the reactionary Clinton. The -problem we are facing is cutbacks in state aid to needy families. It is -state funding not federal funding that goes into the AFDC program, which -has been overthrown. It is true that states set the level of benefits, but the federal government commits half the funds and even under TANF, there are rules for states to maintain a large percentage of their financial commitment to aid. Welfare "deform" was an obscene bill and Clinton will rightly roast in hell for signing it. But let's be clear that AFDC was hardly a peachy keen program for a lot of people. States like Alabama and Mississipi had maximum family benefits of less than $200 per month. Even before the 1996 bill, the real value of monthly checks in places like California had fallen by half when adjusted for inflation compared to their heyday in the early 1970s. The 1996 bill will make this much worse for a lot of people but state governments have always been free to pay welfare recipients shit under AFDC. But you can also put on your ideological blinders and ignore the gains, real economic gains for real families, from the massive expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC does not help the non-working poor, so it is no substitute for AFDC/TANF or SSI, but it is a crucial program for a segment of the poor, the working poor, who have traditionally been badly treated under the welfare system. It is a benefit that increases by 40% the buying power of working families' earned income. If we passed a 40% increase in the minimum wage, that would be seen as a breakthrough and the EITC does that, plus helping out part-time workers making more than the minimum wage. And frankly, you can disagree with my analysis, but your holier-than-thou attitude becomes an excuse to not critically engage with people you disagree with. I'll make no apologies for my analysis of welfare; I've been one of the main organizers of one of the largest, if not the largest local mobilizations in the country against the welfare cuts, called People for Bread Work and Justice, where over 100 organizations have come together to fight national, state and local cutbacks in welfare. I was arrested and jailed last year at a protest at the County building where we (successfully) forced the county to reverse its plan to impose a 3-month limit on General Assistance. We've had marches denouncing Clinton and Gingrich for the 1996 bill and will have a mass march, rally and festival on May 2 tied to the attacks on the social safety net. I also happen to think the 1993 Budget and Tax bills where some of the most important social and economic gains we made in a generation. Clinton himself may be an opportunistic inconsistent bastard in signing both the 1993 and 1996 bills, but I have no problem praising one and condemning the other. --Nathan Newman
Re: Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
>... the following chart shows (in billions of dollars) how >defense spending has fallen even as spending on housing, food assistance, >and general income support (welfare, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.) has >risen between 1992 and 1998: > >Category 1992 1998Change >- - - >Defense 298,350 264,112 -34,238 >Housing assistance 18,904 28,752 +9,848 >Food and nutrition assistance32,622 36,137 +3,515 >Public Assistance & Related 43,353 72,497 +29,144 > (Numbers from Office of Management & Budget) > I assume that these numbers are inflation-adjusted (while the second column represents projections or estimates as 1998 isn't over yet), but shouldn't we also divide each of the last three rows by something like "the number of poor people"? After all, with "entitlements," the size of the budget increases with demand for the services, while the meaning of spending can only be revealed in the context of knowledge of the size of the problem. Also, as Louis points out, we should be adding federal, state, and local budgets for these matters. Also, does "Defense" include the State Department, the Energy Department, the CIA, the NSA, Veteran's benefits, etc., agencies that should be counted as part of the war effort? Even if the numbers that include such hidden military spending fall, it shouldn't surprise us. War spending fell after WW2 also. 1989 might be thought of as the end of WW3. (Indicating that President Velcro Zipper should not be given credit.) >There have been minor expansions of direct welfare payments (AFDC/TANF and >SSI) but a massive expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for >the working poor. The EITC delivers as much as $3500 per year for working >families with low incomes, crucial assistance for minimum wage workers and >those able to find work only part-time. Notably, EITC now delivers more >cash to poor families each year than AFDC ever has historically. to what extent does the rise in the EITC cancel out the rise of state & local sales taxes and other regressive taxes? >One reason it is important for activists to understand this success is >that conservatives have noted it and have continually tried to undermine >the Earned Income Tax Credit. As one of the most valuable gains in public >assistance over the last decade, we need to be aware of its importance as >much as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps or SSI. It's interesting that the cons insisted on greater IRS monitoring of EITC recipients, fearful of a new form of "welfare fraud." This caused a big backlash against the IRS, which the cons then used to bash the IRS. Demagoguery seems to be what the first letter in "D.C." stands for. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "A society is rich when material goods, including capital, are cheap, and human beings dear." -- R.H. Tawney.
Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS - Nathan Newman Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare "deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. The blunt truth is that most of those gains derive from the 1993 budget act and were stalled (but not erased) by the Gingrich takeover of Congress. But the following chart shows (in billions of dollars) how defense spending has fallen even as spending on housing, food assistance, and general income support (welfare, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.) has risen between 1992 and 1998: Category 1992 1998Change - - - Defense 298,350 264,112 -34,238 Housing assistance 18,904 28,752 +9,848 Food and nutrition assistance32,622 36,137 +3,515 Public Assistance & Related 43,353 72,497 +29,144 (Numbers from Office of Management & Budget) The increase in housing assistance, after the tremendous cuts in the Reagan years, is encouraging, while the effects of the attacks on welfare show up in the miniscule increase in food assistance which has not even kept up with inflation. However, given the welfare "deform" bill, the quite substantial expansion of public assistance spending might seem surprising. In fact, this 67% increase in public assistance spending during Clinton's Presidency is actually quite similar to the 73% increase in public assistance that occurred from 1960 to 1969 during the Great Society years. The following table breaking down public assistance into its components outlines the reason for this increase: 1992 1998 Supplemental security income (SSI) program 17,239 26,113 Family support payments to States and TANF 15,103 18,178 Earned income tax credit 7,345 22,295 Payments to States for daycare assistance 2,813 Veterans non-service connected pensions 3,666 3,084 Other public assistance 14 There have been minor expansions of direct welfare payments (AFDC/TANF and SSI) but a massive expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for the working poor. The EITC delivers as much as $3500 per year for working families with low incomes, crucial assistance for minimum wage workers and those able to find work only part-time. Notably, EITC now delivers more cash to poor families each year than AFDC ever has historically. One reason it is important for activists to understand this success is that conservatives have noted it and have continually tried to undermine the Earned Income Tax Credit. As one of the most valuable gains in public assistance over the last decade, we need to be aware of its importance as much as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps or SSI. While all these amounts are obviously inadequate for the poverty and need in our society, we should recognize that despite the power and money of capitalist interests, our work has continued to make a difference in alleviating the inhumanity of the system.
Good news: Welfare gains made in the last six years
GOOD NEWS: THE WELFARE GAINS MADE IN THE LAST SIX YEARS - Nathan Newman Even as many of us organize against the punitive effects of welfare "deform" and other social attacks, we should not ignore the successes and gains we have made in the last decade. Too much focus on losses can lead not to action but to disempowerment, so this post will lay out some good news on our successes embodied in the federal budget. The blunt truth is that most of those gains derive from the 1993 budget act and were stalled (but not erased) by the Gingrich takeover of Congress. But the following chart shows (in billions of dollars) how defense spending has fallen even as spending on housing, food assistance, and general income support (welfare, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.) has risen between 1992 and 1998: Category 1992 1998Change - - - Defense 298,350 264,112 -34,238 Housing assistance 18,904 28,752 +9,848 Food and nutrition assistance32,622 36,137 +3,515 Public Assistance & Related 43,353 72,497 +29,144 (Numbers from Office of Management & Budget) The increase in housing assistance, after the tremendous cuts in the Reagan years, is encouraging, while the effects of the attacks on welfare show up in the miniscule increase in food assistance which has not even kept up with inflation. However, given the welfare "deform" bill, the quite substantial expansion of public assistance spending might seem surprising. In fact, this 67% increase in public assistance spending during Clinton's Presidency is actually quite similar to the 73% increase in public assistance that occurred from 1960 to 1969 during the Great Society years. The following table breaking down public assistance into its components outlines the reason for this increase: 1992 1998 Supplemental security income (SSI) program 17,239 26,113 Family support payments to States and TANF 15,103 18,178 Earned income tax credit 7,345 22,295 Payments to States for daycare assistance 2,813 Veterans non-service connected pensions 3,666 3,084 Other public assistance 14 There have been minor expansions of direct welfare payments (AFDC/TANF and SSI) but a massive expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for the working poor. The EITC delivers as much as $3500 per year for working families with low incomes, crucial assistance for minimum wage workers and those able to find work only part-time. Notably, EITC now delivers more cash to poor families each year than AFDC ever has historically. One reason it is important for activists to understand this success is that conservatives have noted it and have continually tried to undermine the Earned Income Tax Credit. As one of the most valuable gains in public assistance over the last decade, we need to be aware of its importance as much as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps or SSI.
