A few points:
>From what I can see the main thing the states do spend
money on, under TANF, is job search. An issue is whether
the agency providing the program -- possibly a for-profit
contractor -- is motivated to make the best match between
person and job. John Donahue discussed how incentives for
rapid placement defeated the stated purpose of JTPA in an
old EPI report, as well as in his book.
The findings about participation and effect on poverty rates are not original to C&S, but are cited in our paper. Also in the citation category, a key paper on the well- being of low-income single mothers post-reform is by Wendell Primus (on the Center for B&PP web site).
Compared to welfare programs, a tax credit is relatively unbureaucratic. Welfare applications used to be huge, tho I understand they have been slimmed down in more recent years. Even so a tax credit is much more economical w/ respect to administration. Free help in filing for the credit is growing all the time. State and local govt officials are increasingly advertising the EITC and offering services to help people file for it. There are also non-profits involved.
http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/p90401b.htm
Note re: the push more people above the poverty line, lest we get carried away. If it isn't obvious, moving people over the line is not the same as filling the poverty gap. A program could fill a bigger part of the gap than EITC and move nobody 'over the line.'
One relevant benefit of our proposal that you downplay is that we erase the distinction between EITC recipients and other taxpayers by putting them all under the same program. If you have children and don't exceed the interest/dividend income limits, you get a bigger credit, some of which could be cash. We turn the IRS into a huge Mr. Rogers.
BTW, Cherry is first author.
mbs
Fit to print?
FIRST DRAFT: A Decade of "Welfare Reform"
J. Bradford DeLong
894 words
The 1990s were supposed to be the decade of welfare reform. . . .