>The Wash. Post has a vile front-page article this a.m.,
>welfare reform is now a proven triumph. The basis for
>this claim is evidence that the economy is not responsible
>for most of the drop in the rolls (nearly half now). Zero
>data in the article on the well-being of children, nor on
>the level of earnings of those who have left the rolls and
>have jobs, least of all to the difference between the number
>of 'leavers' who work now, and the number that would have
>been expected prior to reform.
Here's what Heather Boushey said in her LBO article:
"Attempts to explain the drop rigorously have come up with mixed results. The President's Council of Economic Advisers estimated that 40% of the caseload reduction between 1993 and 1996 was the result of economic growth (as measured by the fall in the unemployment rate), 31% from waivers, and the rest is unaccounted for. But other researchers disagree, assigning anywhere from 20% to 78% of the causal credit to the robust state of the economy. No one seems to be able to explain convincingly why caseloads have fallen so dramatically - or why they rose so sharply in the early 1990s, during what looked like a mild recession."
The WP article <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories /welfare080399.htm> says:
"Clinton today will release a report from his Council of Economic Advisers asserting that about a third of the decline in welfare caseloads is due to the 1996 overhaul, and only about 10 percent is due to the robust performance of the economy.
The Urban Institute study, however, also includes some sharp warnings about the precarious position of the poor at a time of general national prosperity, and suggests that many people who leave public assistance remain trapped on the lower rungs of the economy. In particular, most women who leave welfare are working in low-wage service jobs, and a significant minority say they have trouble providing food for their families or paying rent, the study concludes."
Also, "The Urban Institute study surveys women who stopped receiving benefits between 1995 and 1997, mostly before welfare reform took effect in most states. Still, by tracking 'leavers,' it aims to predict effects of the law."
Of course, these caveats didn't stop the WP from putting the headline "Welfare Reform's Triumph Is Affirmed" on top of the story.
This is all part of the PR effort around the corporate-government "Welfare to Work Partnership" <http://www.welfaretowork.org>. Sponsors, who of course have no self-interest in this at all, include Burger King, United Airlines, the International Association of Machinists [!], Marriott International, UPS, CVS, and Macy's.
Doug