|
|
 | WELFARE REFORM October 22, 1996 Forum |
|---|
Read Senator Santorum's answers.
NewsHour Coverage of Welfare Reform
July 24, 1996:
Senator Santorum discusses his views on welfare and the bill he co-sponsored.
Fall 1996:
A NewsHour Backgrounder on welfare reform gives some insight into recent developments.
October 1, 1996:
Several States already have welfare plans in place, most notably Wisconsin (with its W-2 system), California and New York. A team of NewsHour correspondents analyze these systems for effectiveness and preparedness.
Good-bye AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children).
After months of wrangling, and three attempts, the 104th Congress finally sent a Welfare Reform package that survived the President's veto. The reason for the three rounds: Republican bills sent to President Clinton were frowned upon as "extremist" by the White House. A version acceptable to the President was finally signed in August, and went into effect October 1. A new era in federal entitlement assistance arrived, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children as we knew it was gone.
The President signed the welfare reform bill reluctantly. But ready or not, the bill has sent states scrambling to develop infrastructures to handle $16.3 billion in new monies - in the form of "block grants" - that they will be receiving.
The rhetoric behind reform reflects wide ideological differences. And at this stage in the national debate, few politicians will go on the record as saying they are opposed to "reforming welfare." But what they mean by the phrase, is a great matter of debate. Welfare-to-work is a route nearly everyone would like to see America's economically needy take. But will the new law promote real jobs? Many details of the bill's implementation are still to be worked out. What exactly comprises "work", for example ?
SEN. CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN, (D) Illinois, has expressed deep reservations with the current law:
This bill...does nothing in terms of preparing people for the work force, job placement, child care while they're working. It does not move from welfare to work in any sensible way, and more to the point, it punishes the 67 percent of the recipients of welfare who are children. Most of the people on welfare are children. Of the 14 million, 9 million are children. Of those 9 million children, 60 percent are under the age of six. Unless we make certain that there is provision for the well-being of those children, we will not have achieved the goals of real welfare reform. No one in this debate who voted and supported this legislation has answered the question what about the children, what happens to them.
The law mandates that by July 1, 1997, a quarter of each states' welfare recipients must be either doing some type of work, or be off the welfare roll. By Oct. 1, 2002, the portion in work programs or off welfare must be half. Single parents will initially be required to work 20 hours a week, and two-parents families will have to work 35 hours. Mothers of children under age 1 are excluded from work requirements.
Forum guest Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), sits on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, and was the co-author of successful welfare reform bill. He has argued that the bill will promote successful welfare to work migration, eliminate bureaucracy, and increase funding in some areas.
Our Forum asks: Are States equipped to handle welfare? Will welfare-to-work create real, meaningful and lasting employment? Is enough thought being given to children of welfare recipients, who have no control over the work status of their parents? How will child health care, nutrition and, most pointedly, child care be handled under the new system? How should States decide when a former welfare recipient is "working"? At the dawn of the 21st Century, what are the moral requisites for a nation in helping its poorest members?
Questions asked in this forum:
- What will happen to benefits for children who are handicapped?
- Are states ready to handle block grants?
- What is the Welfare Bill's definition of work?
- Under the new law, how much can we expect the welfare roles to go down?
- Will HUD (Housing and Urban Development) go the way of welfare?
A question from W.M.Tritt of Surgoinsville, Tn :
There are obviously many children who are handicapped and have special needs. What is the proposal's plan for caring for the special needs of their daycare while the parent(s) work? Is there an agency in the state of Tennessee that should be contacted to help meet the needs of children whose parent(s) can not work because of the requirements of the handicapped child?
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) responds:
Under the new welfare reform law passed by Congress this year, a parent receiving welfare and having a child with special needs would not necessarily fall under the legislation's mandated work requirements. The law was wisely written to exempt a certain portion of the population who are unable to work because of these unique situations. We recognized that there are situations which require care and attention to people with individualized needs. In this light, the law would exempt 20 percent of the welfare-eligible population from the mandated work requirements. This is not a provision which could be changed or altered by the states and I consider it an important and sensible safeguard.
However, if a parent wants to work but is concerned about child care for his/her children, including children with special needs, the welfare reform law dramatically increases federal funding for child care to meet the anticipated increased demand. The legislation authorizes $22 billion for child care services -- an increase of $3 billion over current federal law. This funding will allow many parents to escape welfare and enter the workforce while ensuring that their children will receive the care and attention they deserve.
A question from Alex Goodings of New York, NY :
Are the administrative channels in place to handle block grants? New York does not have a plan to use the money yet... what about other states? Is there a "suggested spending plan" out there?
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) responds:
After more, than thirty years of direct Washington control over public assistance programs, this legislation is founded on the principle that state legislators and Governors know what is best for their states. We have learned that what is best for New York is not necessarily what is best for Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or California. But the law does recognize that we all can agree that our public assistance programs must meet certain universal goals if we are to successfully give real opportunity to families trapped in welfare.
The legislation directs funding to the states in the form of block grants, but states will have the responsibility to meet broad goals and guidelines set by Congress. For example they will be required to create programs to train and move individuals from welfare to work; they will be required to make progress in reducing the frequency of out-of-wedlock births; and they will be required to offer child care and health care benefits. But states will be free to determine how these goals are met. States like Wisconsin and Michigan have already implemented innovative programs to meet these goals. Under the new law all states will have the opportunity to create programs to suit the unique needs of their residents. And unlike many other previous federal programs, this law will require states to meet their goals and to continue to improve their programs.
So far, thirty states -- including New York -- have submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services financial and administrative proposals for implementing federal block grants. Three states have had their programs approved: Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin. Governors and state legislators are now taking this opportunity to do what is best for their residents without the bureaucratic red tape from Washington.
A question from Arriana Kluz of Morristown, NJ :
I am wondering what will be accepted as work in terms of workfare and if recipients will be gaining skills necessary to find work outside workfare programs. What is the Welfare Bill's definition of work?
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) responds:
Under this welfare legislation, states are required to have at least 25 percent of their welfare caseload engaged in 'gainful employment' in fiscal year 1997. By the year 2002, states will be required to have 50 percent of their caseload engaged in work.
Work, as defined in the bill, could be a number of different activities including but not limited to public and private sector jobs, on-the-job training, community service programs and job skill training directly related to employment as well as vocational education programs in a limited capacity.
Single parents would be required to work at least 20 hours a week in fiscal year 1996, rising to 30 hours in fiscal year 2000 to count toward the work requirement. States could allow parents with a child under age 6 to work only 20 hours a week.
A question from SalIy Milton of Kansas City, MO :
Under the new Welfare Reform Bill, how much in percentages will the welfare roles go down in, say, five years?
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) responds:
We have already seen reductions in the welfare rolls as a result of innovations by some states and in anticipation of the new welfare law. Thousands of Americans previously trapped in the cycle of dependency have already left the welfare rolls, entered the workforce, and are self-sufficient and able to care for their families.
Prior to passage of the welfare bill, welfare recipients were required to simply participate in job training. With passage of the new law, recipients are required for the first time to actually work. The bill sets a five-year limitation for job training and work participation. The bill, when fully phased in, the bill will require 50 percent of welfare recipients to be engaged in a work program, ready to move out of the cycle of dependency altogether.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this work requirement will move 1.7 million individuals from welfare to work.
A question from David Bloomington of Jackson Hole, Wyoming :
I just read in the New York Times that the $66 billion a year the Federal Government now spends on mortgage-interest and property tax deductions is about four times as much as it spends on low-income housing. More than two-thirds of it goes to families with incomes above $75,000. Welfare is being dramatically cut, and many people who use food stamps to eat during the winter will be in trouble this year. Many will have to decide between paying the rent and eating. And now that many families will be without food subsides, they will have to move out of their homes.
Will HUD (Housing and Urban Development) go the way of welfare? Or can HUD work with the states to help poor parents and caretakers feed and shelter our children?
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) responds:
Most Americans will agree that after an investment of 30 years and 5.4 trillion in tax dollars, the current welfare system has failed those it intended to help. Instead of fostering a system of work and opportunity, federal welfare programs have consigned many to a life that begins and ends on a dead-end street of irresponsibility and dependency. The most helpful deed we can do for those whom it has entrapped is to make bold and innovative changes.
In addition to the landmark changes in the welfare law, fundamental reform of our housing laws are an integral part of creating these new opportunities. Congress continues to consider fundamental Housing reforms. It has been suggested by members in both the House and the Senate that Housing reform should be considered as separate and distinct legislation. It is anticipated that such reform will be considered as part of the 105th Congress.
In addition, federal housing programs such as the mortgage interest and property tax deductions and low interest loans have allowed millions of low-income Americans to own homes and establish themselves firmly in the middle class. These programs should be continued to enable more low-income families to escape poverty and provide necessary housing for their families.
Richard K. Edwards of Boston, Mass.
Recently I became a permanent resident of the U.S., though I have worked here for several years on a temporary visa. I have, therefore, been a U.S. taxpayer since 1988. What is the rationale for denying federal benefits to someone in my position for the first five years as a permanent resident? Doesn't the new legislation penalize me in the event that I lose my job?
Andy Welch of Athens, GA
The recent minimum wage hike will increase wages by $.90 per hour over the next two years. Economists say that those at the margins or those who are not the most qualified workers will be hurt most by the minimum wage increase. In light of this, what effects will the welfare bill have on this group of people? Those at the margin will soon have to get jobs, but with an increase in the minimum wage, they will find this more difficult. Welfare reform was / is needed but did passing the minimum wage increase or decrease the chances of this bill having the desired effect?
Lynn Brielmaier of Houston, TX
I'm all for welfare reform (because like most people, I don't get these benefits anyway). Now, suppose that one year after trimming some people off (or reducing the payouts to these folks), there is a noticeable rise in Homelessness? We have done little for the homeless in the past, would we do more if the problem got worse? Or would we be ok with scenes like they have in Bombay?
 | ||||
| ||||
|
|
| ||
| ||||
| ||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||||
