Gil Skillman wrote: > > A colleague and I are sending the following op-ed piece to the Hartford > Courant. Any comments or suggestions from PENrs before I send it off? > The Welfare "Reform" Bill: Surgery with an Axe > Why are people on welfare? Your column is very good in what it addresses, but you evade one of the most crucial issues. You cite research to the effect that (I paraphrase) "most people on welfare are only there temporarily" and are clearly committed to economic independence, despite enormous obstacles. In one sense this is quite true and very important to talk about, but your implied definition of the word "most" is evasive. If one's universe is all those ever on welfare, "most" is accurate. But if one takes account of the caseload at a single point in time, a fair proportion -- at least one-third and possibly 40 or 50 percent -- are expected to be on welfare for seven years or more. The difference is of course due to high turnover among the short-timers relative to the long-term recipients. I'm no sociologist, but I would bet that the characteristics of the adult long-termers are markedly different than the rest. Their children are probably worse off because of such differences, which include all the social pathologies customarily imputed to the entire welfare population by the right. They also account for a disproportionate share of expense in AFDC/Food Stamps (though not Medicaid). This group of hard cases is what the public imagines the entire caseload to be, but the falseness of the public's impression does not refute the existence of the group. However you explain the presence of long-term recipients, it arguably presents a different and much more difficult challenge for policy and for political defense of public assistance. To evade the problem is politically tempting but unrealistic, because the long-term recipients are the ones who gall the voters the most. You can't hide them, and you don't answer your opening question "why are people on welfare?" in this regard. My best solution, which obviously hasn't worked, is to stress the innocence of the children in question and cite research (MDRC etc.) to the effect that intensive job training/social service packages with employment at the end have been shown to be effective. The problem of course is that they cost more than giving out cash or doing nothing at all. Good luck getting your column published. You might be interested in the Chernick piece I have tried to post to the list. M.S. ==================================================== 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
