I thought the DLC loved the EITC because it drove a wedge between the working and nonworking poor - i.e., it rewarded the "deserving," while welfare reform would punish the underserving. I thought the true "progressive" position was child allowances and/or minimum incomes with no strings attached. The EITC smells more like corporatist social policy. Doug
-----------------
Almost all pols like the EITC because it's a politically safe way to help the poor. It's safe because it neglects those the public does not want to help -- those perceived as being able to work.
Child allowance/minimum income/negative income tax was the progressive position and is still held by some, notably Francis Piven, but it's a political non-starter.
A different progressive position is to seek to load as many benefits onto those who work as possible, including expanded tax credits refundable in cash. This approach is the frame for plans to influence the upcoming reauthorization of TANF (formerly AFDC) in 2002. Whatever your take on this issue, anyone interested ought to begin thinking about the run-up to this debate.
I'm not a big fan of acceding to dominant paradigms, but after wrestling with this one for nearly 30 years, I'm willing to be pragmatic and try to help those who can be helped.
mbs