Ken Hanly wrote:
>>Isn't the ability to keep "extra" money an invitation to cut back welfare and
use the block grants as a means to fund programs quite unrelated to helping
those needing welfare? This is perverse.>>
very perverse. In fact, this is already happening in some states. However,
some
Ken Hanly wrote:
> COMMENT:
> Isn't the ability to keep "extra" money an invitation to cut back welfare
> and use the block grants as
> a means to fund programs quite unrelated to helping those needing welfare?
> This is perverse.
>
Yes, this is the way block grants (as opposed to federal ent
et 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
>>b
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: Welf
Comments and queries after specific sections:
- Original Message -
From: Margaret Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Michael Perelman's question about the changes in welfare laws in reprinted
below.
Actually, the welfare laws changed more in the summer of 1996 with the
passage of PROWRA
(I forg
It's the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. The block grants were fixed
at the
amount distributed under AFDC in 1994, until 2002 when the Act is up for renewal.
Since most
Republican and Democratic congresspeople think that the rolls have declined and
therefore it
is a success (i
Michael Perelman's question about the changes in welfare laws in reprinted below.
Actually, the welfare laws changed more in the summer of 1996 with the passage of
PROWRA
(I forget the exact name, something like personal responsibility and work recovery act)
than they have since welfare was insti
bility 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
>
&
Michael wrote:
>I was under the impression that it was not so much changes in the [US
>foodstamp] law, but changes in the interpretation and the implementation
>of the law -- as well as misperception on the part of people who might
>have otherwise been on welfare.
interpretation is crucial. I
The changes in the law are real and consequential. But consistent with the historical
practice, implementation also tightens a lot in this new legal environment. At the
extremes, politicians like Mayor Guliani then venture into practices that the courts
later
deem illegal--for example, routinely
>But aren't the number of foodbanks and other supplements to welfare
>growing? Are the rules for eligibility more stringent?
>Cheers, Ken Hanly
in this state (florida), in order to get food you are supposed to have
an i.d. ($40 if you don't have license)
birth certificates for you and dep
Yes, but the effect of the rule changes and the effect of an
expansionary economy play out on different sectors of the welfare
population. Since we don't know what has happened to one half of the
leavers, I think it is fair to say that the economy helped to get jobs
for those who were employed, w
But aren't the number of foodbanks and other supplements to welfare
growing? Are the rules for eligibility more stringent?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
I don't know how or if the # of foodbanks has
changed.
Eligibility rules are now left to the states,
and caseload has gone down over 40% since before
I was under the impression that it was not so much changes in the law, but
changes in the interpretation and the implementation of the law -- as well
as misperception on the part of people who might have otherwise been on
welfare. Am I off base?
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 11:29:27AM -0500, Joel Bl
ject: [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 th
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, ho
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
"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
n
18 matches
Mail list logo
