Here are four things to understand about poverty and dependency.
- Throughout most of human history, harsh material deprivation was the norm for the vast majority of people.
- The development of free enterprise and economic liberty led to dramatic increases in living standards.
- The poverty rate declined significantly in the 1800s and early 1900s when there was no welfare state.
- After the welfare state was created, poverty and dependency stopped declining.
Now let’s add a fifth item.
- The United States adopted welfare reform in the mid-1990s.
Today’s column examines whether this was a bad development or good development.
We’ll start with a harsh critic.
In his column for the New York Times, Charles Blow wants Democrats to repeal Clinton’s welfare reform.
Clinton’s record, particularly with respect to Black and brown Americans and the poor, was marked by catastrophic miscalculation. …the welfare reform bill, …Clinton promised would “end welfare as we know it.” One of its central provisions was block-grant assistance to the states. …the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out in 2020, the block grant to states “has been set at $16.5 billion each year since 1996; as a result, its real value has fallen by almost 40 percent due to inflation.” …With the passage of the “American Rescue Plan,” the Democrats, alone, took another major step away from the mistakes of the Clinton legacy by increasing aid to families with children and to workers.
Reading the column, it seems like blacks must have suffered immensely because of the 40 percent reduction in the block grant.
But now let’s consider whether welfare reform was a good thing.
According to the data, the answer is yes. This chart, based on the Census Bureau’s data (specifically Table B-5), shows that the poverty rate for African Americans has declined since welfare reform was enacted.
To be sure, one could argue that the post-welfare reform decline was simply a continuation of a positive trend. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s certainly no evidence that the 1996 legislation led to bad results.
Moreover, research from the Brookings Institution makes a persuasive case that welfare reform deserves credit for some of the post-1996 progress.
Why? Because it sent a message – both practically and rhetorically – that permanent dependence on Uncle Sam was a bad thing. As a result, more people entered the workforce and poverty dropped.
That seems like a result that should be celebrated.
Unfortunately, Biden’s so-called American Rescue Plan contains big per-child handouts that are not dependent on being in the workforce.
The only silver lining to that dark cloud is that the handouts are only for 2021.
But the pro-redistribution crowd already is clamoring to make that provision a permanent giveaway. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, they want to “restore welfare as we knew it.”
P.S. Based on what I’ve read in his columns, Charles Blow is a hard-core leftist on economic issues. But he’s semi-reasonable on gun rights, so that’s one point in his favor.
P.P.S. Welfare reform is just one example of the good policies that were enacted during the Clinton years.
P.P.P.S. We can learn lessons about welfare and dependency by looking at data from Europe and Canada.
[…] EPIC report. The answer is to get Washington out of the redistribution racket. In other words, copy the success of Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by turning all welfare programs into block grants and putting states back in charge. With the […]
[…] my view that Bill Clinton’s welfare reform (replacing an entitlement with a block grant) was very successful and that it should be extended to other redistribution programs such as Medicaid and food […]
[…] This is why welfare reform under Bill Clinton was a good idea. […]
[…] Yet we know from the experience of welfare reform in the 1990s that work requirements did boost labor supply. […]
[…] time to shift all of these programs back to the state level, building on the success of Bill Clinton’s welfare reform from the […]
[…] Is it one of the expansions of the welfare state, such as the per-child handouts that would gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform? […]
[…] This is why welfare reform under Bill Clinton was a good idea. […]
[…] I’ll close by noting that this is not some sort of risky or untested notion. Bill Clinton’s welfare reform replaced a federal entitlement with a block grant and that was very successful. […]
[…] were many arguments against these per-child handouts (reversing Bill Clinton’s welfare reform, setting the stage for universal basic income, […]
[…] I have defended Clinton’s welfare reform(along with some of his other good policies), the above excerpt caught my […]
[…] I have defended Clinton’s welfare reform (along with some of his other good policies), the above excerpt caught my […]
[…] But perhaps a restoration campaign would be politically successful. After all, welfare reform was popular in the 1990s. Why not expand the […]
[…] This is why welfare reform under Bill Clinton was a good idea. […]
[…] But perhaps a restoration campaign would be politically successful. After all, welfare reform was popular in the 1990s. Why not expand the […]
[…] worse results. But perhaps a restoration campaign would be politically successful. After all, welfare reform was popular in the 1990s. Why not expand the […]
[…] landslide in 1994 played a big role in many of the subsequent pro-market reforms (such as welfare reform, the 1997 tax cut, […]
[…] landslide in 1994 played a big role in many of the subsequent pro-market reforms (such as welfare reform, the 1997 tax cut, […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] His per-child handout is the most expensive, and it’s especially pernicious because it would undo the success of Bill Clinton (and Newt Gingrich’s) welfare […]
[…] per-child handout is the most expensive, and it’s especially pernicious because it would undo the success of Bill Clinton (and Newt Gingrich’s) welfare […]
[…] and more rigorous studies showing the various social pathologies (unemployment, dependency, single-parent households, poverty, loss of societal capital, etc) associated with […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] For what it’s worth, the $3,000-per-child handouts are Biden’s most damaging idea. In one fell swoop, he would create a trillion-dollar entitlement program and repeal the successful Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform. […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] I agree with the WSJ. Biden wants to create more dependency, even if that means eviscerating Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] Yet we know from the experience of welfare reform in the 1990s that work requirements did boost labor supply. […]
[…] I agree with the WSJ. Biden wants to create more dependency, even if that means eviscerating Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] I agree with the WSJ. Biden wants to create more dependency, even if that means eviscerating Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] For what it’s worth, the $3,000-per-child handouts are Biden’s most damaging idea. In one fell swoop, he would create a trillion-dollar entitlement program and repeal the successful Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform. […]
[…] I agree with the WSJ. Biden wants to create more dependency, even if that means eviscerating Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] For what it’s worth, the $3,000-per-child handouts are Biden’s most damaging idea. In one fell swoop, he would create a trillion-dollar entitlement program and repeal the successful Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform. […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] Yet we know from the experience of welfare reform in the 1990s that work requirements did boost labor supply. […]
[…] Yet we know from the experience of welfare reform in the 1990s that work requirements did boost labor supply. […]
[…] For what it’s worth, the $3,000-per-child handouts are Biden’s most damaging idea. In one fell swoop, he would create a trillion-dollar entitlement program and repeal the successful Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform. […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] take the example of President Biden’s proposal to gut welfare reform with per-child […]
[…] I noted in the interview, that reform reduced dependency and it reduced poverty. And Biden’s plan, for all intents and purposes, will repeal that law since it will be possible […]
[…] I noted in the interview, that reform reduced dependency and it reduced poverty. And Biden’s plan, for all intents and purposes, will repeal that law since it will be […]
[…] P.S. This battle is not just an issue of dollars and cents. Some of the Biden-Bernie proposals, such as per-child handouts, would increase dependency by undoing Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. […]
[…] P.S. This battle is not just an issue of dollars and cents. Some of the Biden-Bernie proposals, such as per-child handouts, would increase dependency by undoing Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. […]
[…] But now he’s proposing a massive expansion of the welfare state, including huge per-child handouts that effectively would repeal Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] But now he’s proposing a massive expansion of the welfare state, including huge per-child handouts that effectively would repeal Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] For what it’s worth, the $3,000-per-child handouts are Biden’s most damaging idea. In one fell swoop, he would create a trillion-dollar entitlement program and repeal the successful Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform. […]
[…] For what it’s worth, the $3,000-per-child handouts are Biden’s most damaging idea. In one fell swoop, he would create a trillion-dollar entitlement program and repeal the successful Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform. […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] than hit the brakes, Biden wants to step on the gas with new giveaways, especially his plan to gut Bill Clinton’s welfare reform by creating new per-child handouts that would subsidize idleness and family […]
[…] For all intents and purposes, politicians in DC have been undoing the great achievement of welfare reform. That 1996 law was designed to push people from idleness into employment, and it was largely successful. […]
[…] For all intents and purposes, politicians in DC have been undoing the great achievement of welfare reform. That 1996 law was designed to push people from idleness into employment, and it was largely successful. […]
[…] Blow is a doctrinaire left-wing columnist for the New York Times. But I applauded him late last year for expressing sympathy for black gun […]
[…] Blow is a doctrinaire left-wing columnist for the New York Times. But I applauded him late last year for expressing sympathy for black gun […]
[…] I agree with the WSJ. Biden wants to create more dependency, even if that means eviscerating Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] I agree with the WSJ. Biden wants to create more dependency, even if that means eviscerating Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
[…] I agree with the WSJ. Biden wants to create more dependency, even if that means eviscerating Bill Clinton’s very successful welfare reform. […]
RightJB, welfare reform passed two years before the Lewinsky scandal broke, so who is the revisionist?
How is Bill Clinton a racist? Or even a pedophile?
[…] Defending Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform […]
Revisionist much?
This was Speaker Gingrich’s Welfare Reform that both he and Dick Morris have retold, explaining that it had been trashed by Clinton 5 times until he needed something to divert conservatives away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Nice of you to give a known pedophile and racist credit though.
Let’s not give any more credit than he is due. He was smoking cigars in the Oval Office closet while Newt and the Republicans were fulfilling their Contract with America.