High-Priced Republican Welfare Plan Puts the Burden on States
The Need for Flexibility
The Democratic Reform Plan Preserves Flexibility
The GOP Plan's Poor Track Record
What’s Next for Welfare Reform?
February 13, 2003: CONGRESSWOMAN WATSON SAYS WELFARE REFORM BILL GOUGES STATES
January 16, 2003: WATSON CALLS PRESIDENT’S SPEECH ON WELFARE REFORM MISGUIDED
In May of this year, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives approved a major welfare bill that overhauls the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The legislation imposes costly new funding mandates on states, which they can ill afford. The Republican Welfare bill will force California to come up with an additional $3.5 billion dollars over the next five years.
Both the White House and members of Congress have praised the TANF program’s successes since its inception six years ago: welfare rolls shrank and caseloads decreased. But, if TANF has been a success, why is the White House demanding major changes to current law? The proposed changes could severely restrict California’s ability to respond effectively to the needs of its welfare recipients and, at the same time, burden the state with additional welfare expense. Simply put, the new TANF legislation rolls back welfare reform and reflects a one size fits all, Washington knows best approach.
Flexibility is one of welfare reform’s greatest assets. Under current law, flexibility in the design and implementation of TANF programs has resulted in the decline of caseloads and child poverty rates in almost every state in the nation. California, for example, has significantly reduced its caseload and nearly tripled the number of employed welfare recipients. It has been recognized for its effective performance under the federal guidelines and has received nearly $82 million in federal bonuses in 1998 and 1999. In 2000, California again was singled out and awarded additional federal funds in recognition of high job retention and earnings gains of its TANF recipients. Flexibility in the implementation of welfare programs that are tailored to the specific needs of communities is the principal reason for California’s welfare reform success, both at the state and county level.
Instead of preserving this flexibility, the new TANF legislation proposes overly strict work requirements, increases non-skilled make-work jobs, and limits opportunities for educational training, all of which threatens to leave families mired in poverty. In a recent survey, state leaders and governors of both parties from across the nation agreed that the Republican welfare plan is unrealistic and administratively unworkable.
During debate, I joined many of my colleagues in support of an alternative Democratic plan for TANF. Our reform plan would have built on the successes of welfare reform while attempting to address some of its flaws. The Democratic plan would have provided an extra $11 billion over five years for child care services and would have restored TANF benefits for legal immigrants. Based on legislation (H.R. 3625) sponsored by Rep. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), the substitute also would have maintained the 30-hour work requirement for welfare recipients and would have increased the time for which vocational education could count toward participation rates from 12 months, as in current law and the House-passed bill, to 24 months.
Many key provisions of the Republican welfare bill are derived from the Wisconsin welfare program implemented by Governor Tommy Thompson, now President Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. A recent audit of the Wisconsin TANF program shows that 35 percent of those who left the program remain unemployed, and 66 percent of those who worked fell below the income poverty level. In effect, the majority of families moving off welfare in Wisconsin are still caught in the poverty trap. Now the Administration is asking the rest of country to adopt a similar model whose long term success is debatable and whose effectiveness in achieving poverty reduction is being questioned by the state of Wisconsin’s own Department of Welfare Administration.
I voted against the most recent version of TANF reauthorization, H.R.4, passed by the House on February 13. Instead, I supported both Democratic substitutes offered on the floor, which would have provided more funding to the states to implement TANF programs.
H.R. 4 (108th) is identical to the Republican welfare reform bill, H.R. 4737 (107th), that passed the House last year. It is deeply flawed, and will severely limit state flexibility and a recipient's ability to secure economic independence for the family. For example, the bill raises work requirements from 30 to 40 hours a week for recipients, but woefully under funds child care programs that are necessary for states to comply with such federal mandate.
The Senate will consider its welfare reauthorization bill this Spring. Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has indicated he will consider the same work requirements as the House bill but substantially increase child care funding.
I hope the Senate will agree to a more just and fair approach to reauthorizing TANF. States must be allowed to build upon their current programs, especially in a time of budgetary crisis. Families on welfare need to maintain their benefits on their way to self-sufficiency, not only in cash benefits but child care services, food stamps, mental health and substance abuse treatment, domestic violence counseling, and housing assistance.
back to top
