Heather:
> Although Max has made some nice arguments that social spending
is still
with us and and that we should be organizing to stop states from
blocking enrollment, based on national welfare rights movement
of the
late 1960s, I find both of the lines of reasoning troubling.
>
> What happened with PRA of 1996 is that Congress eliminated
welfare as an
entitlement. . . . "
The significance of entitlement is well-taken. That follows for one that is lost (AFDC), but also for those that remain (FSP, Medicaid, etc.). Clearly the activist's goal should be to uphold those that remain by organizing people to apply for benefits, and to restore or replace that which was lost.
A basic problem in public understanding is what "welfare" entails. It's a lot more than cash assistance, hence the salience of organizing people to apply for benefits.
A basic question is whether we can or want to go back to the old system. I would say no. The new system is founded on a premise -- a 'virtual entitlement' -- that creates the basis for some constructive politics. The new system is supposed to help people succeed as workers. This opens up the entire panoply of worker protections and labor standards (guaranteed employment, minimum wages, health care, etc.) to "welfare" politics. I would argue that this is a much more fruitful line of organizing, though it suffers from the fact of its early stage of development.
When radicals say "welfare is gone," I fear they are a) neglecting that which remains (very much larger than the cash component); b) fixating on a restoration of the old AFDC program, which is of dubious practicality and merit.
Obviously the poor need cash and housing, among other things. It does not follow that simply demanding these things is the best approach. I would suggest the starting point is the notion that work should pay, and that workers' incomes should support their families according to a decent standard. From this it follows that wages should be supplemented with cash, health care, etc.
The alternative is a movement for a guaranteed income, rather than a minimum social wage. I think there is more hope for the latter.
Regards,
Max