Document Actions
Welfare Reform, 10 Years Later
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Aug 21, 2006The Boston Globe
August 22, 2006
Boston Globe Editorial Opinion Article
IT WAS 10 years ago today that President Clinton signed a major welfare reform overhaul into law. In the years since, a revisionist view of the debate and the issues then in play has increasingly gotten in the way of progressive legislative responses that could improve the economy for today's low-wage workers.
Many social conservatives suggest that the 1996 reform legislation, which tightened strictures on who could receive welfare and for how long, was a triumph of conservative values. More specifically, they argue that the debate pitted those policymakers who wanted people to work against those who wanted to provide a handout to people who refused to work. That description wildly oversimplifies a complex issue, and is simply untrue. We don't know of anyone, regardless of ideological leanings, who would argue that a lifetime of dependency is good public policy.
It is more accurate to consider the 1996 debate as a preview of the ``you're-on-your-own" economic philosophy that so profoundly shapes the policies of the current Washington administration.
For many champions of welfare reform, the goal was simply to reduce federal spending and caseloads -- no more, no less. Conservatives argue that because millions of Americans entered the ranks of the working poor (where many of them have remained for nearly a decade), the 1996 law should be viewed as one of the greatest policy achievements in recent memory. Except, doesn't that set the bar for success awfully low?
Through their inaction, national leaders suggest that the growing low-wage labor market isn't really their problem, thus there is no problem. The conservative value that underlies welfare reform is not so much the merit of work as it is an unshakable belief that the labor market is working for everyone. But the unavoidable reality is that with the decline of the manufacturing sector and the loss of other ``good" jobs, a third of the jobs in America now pay about $10 an hour or less, without benefits. Meanwhile, Congress cannot seem to take the long-overdue step of increasing the federal minimum wage.
Fortunately, in smaller communities, where simply ignoring the problem isn't an option, state and local governments are focusing on turning low-wage jobs into better jobs with higher wages and employment benefits. The most popular policy change adopted by state and local officials is an increase in wages, often taking the form of living-wage ordinances targeted to government employers and contractors. Currently 140 communities have living-wage policies on the books, and 23 states plus the District of Columbia have established a higher minimum wage than federal law. In Massachusetts, the Legislature early this month overrode the governor's veto to approve a minimum-wage increase.
Just recently, Chicago policymakers decided to require that big-box employers interested in locating within city limits pay a higher wage. There is interest in similar legislation in places like Washington, D.C. Recognizing that nearly 1 in 5 working adults have no health coverage, San Francisco leaders recently took steps to ensure that all city residents have access to healthcare. Employers must help pay the cost of this new benefit under the city ordinance.
In addition, a number of states and cities are considering requiring that low-wage employers provide paid leave, especially sick leave, since 76 percent of low-wage jobs provide no paid sick leave. A few places either have or are considering policies that would expand the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to include routine family illness. Currently, that law does not require employers to provide even unpaid leave time for an employee's or child's illness, often leaving them no option but to go to work sick, or to send a child to school anyway.
The debate over welfare reform was never about whether or not people
should work. Of course they should. The question is whether or not our
policies should help to create an economy that works for everyone. Of
course they should.
As we recognize the 10-year anniversary of the
landmark welfare law, it's time for federal policymakers to stop
basking in their own ``success" and instead catch up to state and local
officials. Our national policy should take every possible step to
support the economy by turning low-wage jobs into decent work.
________________________________________
Rachel Gragg and Margy Waller work at the Center for Community Change in Washington, D.C. They served as advisors on welfare policy to Senator Paul Wellstone and President Bill Clinton, respectively. Margy Waller is currently the director of The Mobility Agenda, Center for Community Change, www.inclusionist.org.Files available for download:
