> Max Sawicky wrote:
> >A little while
> >ago, somebody mentioned Clinton 'throwing people off welfare and
> >Spending on Medicaid is higher than ever, by any metric. The chief area
> >cuts is means-tested cash assistance, which was not large to begin with.
> First, the removal of the entitlement to AFDC, and the imposition of time
> limits, is no minor cut. Sure the effects aren't glaring right now, with
> the economy relatively strong and the time limits only beginning to kick
> in, but let's reconsider this in a couple of years. Second, as people are
> kicked off welfare, they're losing food stamp and Medicaid benefits for
> which they may still be eligible. So even though Medicaid spending may be
> "higher than ever," I doubt very seriously whether the number of people
> covered is. Maybe someone here has the numbers on this.
if i understood max's point, it was that in terms of $, it was a minor cut (since the afdc and food stamp aid [generally called "welfare"] were so measly in the u.s. anyway). doug is absolutely right, tho, about how politically and ethically draconian the cuts were, precisely for the reason max mentions. to listent to the rhetoric of the right, you'd have thought state expenditure on cash relief was the main drag on national productivity as well as on the u.s.' civilizing project. as the new york times reported about three weeks ago, governors and legislatures have been openly defying the stipulations in the welfare "reform" law that say that people who leave welfare are entitled to take medicare with them. (see nyt 12 apr 1999; A1+)