The most recent issue of Dissent contains an open letter by Fred Block and Francis Scott Piven to Hillary Clinton in which they argue she should open a national dialogue contesting the claims of the Republican Party about poverty and welfare. Block and Piven rightly argue that change in the “welfare system as we know it” passed by a Republican Congress and approved by President Clinton has severely damaged the poor. The change abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program and substituted the Temporary Need to Needy Families. The basic idea was that long term welfare encouraged dependency and discouraged work. For a while, in a good economy, the program was thought to be successful. But the program was unaccompanied by a job guarantee and the lack of a guarantee has made a difference. 4.5 million families were in the AFDC program in 1996 when the program was eliminated. Only 1.7 million families were in the TANF program in 2009 despite the acute distress of the economy. The program had been cut by 62%.
As Robert Reich reports in his book Locked in the Cabinet, President Clinton, who previously had vetoed similar bills, was urged by a number of people in the administration to veto the bill including, of course, Reich and Peter Edelman, but also Robert Rubin who had fought Reich throughout the administration, but thought this move was simply inhumane. To my surprise, Al Gore encouraged Clinton to sign the bill. In my view, Clinton’s action was not only a craven political move; it tore at the heart of what the Democratic Party had long stood for.
The dependence argument has always been overblown. Sure, some people would prefer to receive welfare than to work, but the claim that most of those on welfare get there or stay there because of laziness (partially fed by racism) apparently relies on the notion that an epidemic of laziness struck the country in 2008 when the economy fell apart (caused in large part by Clinton and Rubin’s deregulation of the banks). Moreover, the dependence argument throws innocent children under the bus in an effort to punish their parents most of whom do not deserve to be punished.
Block and Piven argue that Hillary Clinton should initiate a national dialogue because people are angry about wealth inequality (with the bonuses to Wall Street bankers as but one example); because the plight of the poor not only in the TANF program, but also in the unemployment insurance area is acute; and because of the unconscionable recent cut in the food stamps program. They suggest that the hope that the Republican’s dependence issue would be taken away by the President’s caving in to change welfare as we know it has not worked out. Think of Mitt Romney’s attack on the 47% which includes people on Social Security and those receiving veteran’s benefits.
It would be wonderful if Hillary Clinton heeded the call of Block and Piven. But I doubt she will. Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty, but the word poverty is now rarely uttered by a Democratic politician. It seems to me that there is a special responsibility of religious leaders to follow the lead of Pope Francis in dramatizing the plight of the poor. But it is not enough to expose that plight. The Republicans should no longer be given a free pass on the dependency argument. We need a full out assault. It is time to combat the preposterous suggestion that depriving poor families of food, clothing, and shelter is doing them a favor.
Comments