Did the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act passed in 1996 turned welfare programs over to the states?

In 1996, Democratic President Bill Clinton and a Republican-led Congress passed The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), also known as the “Welfare Reform Act.” This bill changed how government-funded welfare operated in the United States. PRWORA reduced the amount of federal spending for low-income families, placed a limit on the number of years a person could receive federal financial assistance, and required recipients to work within two years of receiving benefits. It also included legislation that limited the funding available to unmarried parents under the age of 18, enhanced legal enforcement of child support, and restricted funding for immigrants. Republican supporters believed these provisions would curb the number of out-of-wedlock births.

Nội dung chính Show

• Discussion Questions
• Bibliography
• What was an outcome of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?
• What did the welfare Reform Act of 1996 end?
• What was the purpose of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?
• What was the purpose of the welfare Reform Act of 1996?

The bill ignited a decades-long debate about individual responsibility versus social responsibility and the role of the government in directly alleviating poverty. On the one hand, the bill was heralded as an important step toward helping welfare recipients achieve self-reliance and employment. Through this bill, Clinton aimed to “end welfare as we know it” by creating job opportunities that would help stop a cycle of poverty and dependency. Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and his colleagues in Congress pressured Clinton to make the bill even more austere. They argued that reducing welfare funding reinforced core American values of individual responsibility, hard work, independence, and free enterprise.

Critics of the bill argued that it negatively affected the most vulnerable people in society. Several members of Clinton’s administration even resigned as a result of the bill. One of these detractors, Peter Edelman, argued that welfare reform would not solve the problem, but rather drive millions more people into poverty, many of them single mothers and their children. During the debate, Senator Edward Kennedy called the bill “legislative child abuse.” From this perspective, the government was essentially abdicating its responsibility to care for children and impoverished people who are systemically disadvantaged.

The bill was effective for getting people off of welfare at first, in part due to a booming economy in the late 1990s. By 2000, welfare caseloads were at their lowest level in 30 years. However, wages tended to be barely above the poverty line and did not provide long term financial stability. Financial instability was exacerbated by the economic downturn in 2008. In a 2016 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities examining the effects of PRWORA and related policies, research showed several findings: “Employment increases…were modest and faded over time;” “Stable employment…[was] the exception, not the norm;” “Most recipients…never found work even after participation in work programs…;” “The large majority of individuals…remained poor, and some became poorer;” and “Voluntary employment programs can significantly increase employment without the negative impacts of ending basic assistance…”

The government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid remains an active debate in the U.S. today.

Discussion Questions

1. In this case, who favors the individualistic fundamental moral unit? Who favors the community-oriented fundamental moral unit? Which viewpoint do you find the most compelling and why?

2. Regardless of your own political affiliation, do you think governments or societies have an obligation to care for disadvantaged or lower-income families? Why or why not?

3. Do you think everyone in your home country has equal opportunities to succeed in society? Why or why not? Do you think success is the sole responsibility of the individual or does government have a role to play? Explain your position.

4. How might individuals raised with different notions of the fundamental moral unit respond differently to the Welfare Reform Act?

5. How might awareness of the fundamental moral unit help us to better understand differences between political parties?

Bibliography

President Clinton hugs former welfare recipient Lillie Harden, of Little Rock, Arkansas, in the Rose Garden of the White House on Aug. 22, 1996, where he signed legislation overhauling America’s welfare system. | Denis Paquin/AP Photo

After having vetoed two welfare reform bills, on this day in 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The legislation substantially reconstructed the nation’s welfare system by giving state governments more autonomy over welfare services while also reducing the federal government’s role.

Drafted by Rep. John Kasich (R-Ohio) in a GOP-controlled Congress, the act ended welfare as an entitlement program; required recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits; placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds; sought to encourage two-parent families and to discourage out-of-wedlock births; enhanced enforcement of child support, and required state professional and occupational licenses to be withheld from undocumented immigrants.

In his 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton pledged to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton administration spent much of its legislative energy on a vain effort to enact universal health care; no plan emerged on welfare reform.

The political calculus changed when the Republican emerged victorious in the 1994 midterm contests and elected Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia as the House speaker.

Clinton and Gingrich negotiated over reform legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had sought to cut a deal with Sen. Trent Lott, (R-Miss.), the majority whip, but failed to do so. Meantime, Gingrich persuaded the more conservative members of his caucus to support the “welfare to work” approach.

Clinton found the legislation that emerged from Capitol Hill more conservative than he would have preferred. However, with his reelection campaign in high gear, he decided it was too politically risky for him to veto yet another welfare reform bill. As he signed the measure into law, Clinton said that it “gives us a chance we haven’t had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives”

Three assistant secretaries at the Department of Health and Human Services, Mary Jo Bane, Peter Edelman, and Wendell Primus, resigned to protest the new law. According to Edelman, the welfare reform law destroyed the federal safety net by increasing poverty, lowering income for single mothers, moving people from welfare into homeless shelters, and leaving states free to eliminate welfare entirely.

While it moved mothers from welfare to work, many of them were not making enough money to thrive, Edelman argued. Others, he said, were pushed off welfare rolls because they didn’t show up for an appointment, because they could not get to an appointment for lack of child care or because they were not notified.

Welfare and poverty rates both declined during the late 1990s, however, leading some observers to view the legislation as a success.

SOURCE: “THIS DAY IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY,” BY PAUL BRANDUS (2008)

What was an outcome of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?

What did the welfare Reform Act of 1996 end?

What was the purpose of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?

What was the purpose of the welfare Reform Act of 1996?