In 1969 the National Governors’ Conference voted 48 to 1 to turn welfare over to the federal government. Now the governors overwhelmingly favor a plan to take it back. (Bills doing just that have passed both houses of Congress.) Did the governors know what they were doing back then? Do they know what they’re doing now? Does a pendulum know which way it will swing next?
welfare is very expensive,
if potential welfare recipients would only act responsibly–graduate from high school, get married, and then have children–they would have less trouble landing those jobs; and
This became obvious last spring when Illinois Republicans rushed “fast-track” welfare reforms through Springfield, giving 15 minutes’ notice of the one official committee hearing. As a result many of the key conservative proposals are already law in Illinois, including “two years and out” (a two-year cumulative maximum time on AFDC for those with kids over 12), and a “family cap” (no additional payments for children born to AFDC families after October 31, 1996).
Why don’t the pundits ever call them on it? Why does this ritual make (almost) everyone feel so good? What’s really going on here?
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Forty percent of Americans imagine that welfare costs more than national defense or social security. Yet the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States shows that the federal government spent $13.6 billion on AFDC in 1992–less than 5 percent of what it spent for the military ($282 billion) or social security ($296 billion).
No wonder few economists believe that welfare incites many people to loaf, or make babies, or anything else. Maybe it would if it were more generous, but the maximum package is $690 a month (calculated by the Public Welfare Coalition).
