Obligation and welfare policy

Abstract

Ronald Reagan came to the White House with a reputation for welfare reform that dated from his days as governor of California. The administration's first step was to restrict benefits to working recipients in ways similar to procedures originally proposed in that state. The impact on the AFDC caseload of these changes, however, was modest, and, ironically, the work program opportunities provided by legislation sponsored by the Reagan administration have been exploited as successfully by Democrats such as Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts as by Republicans. Despite frequent references to welfare and welfare problems since 1981, the administration has been notably short of ideas. The silence from the White House has been filled by outsiders - first Murray and then Mead and others such as journalists Mickey Kaus (1986) and Nicholas Lemann (1986). While Losing Ground argued for the government's retirement from the field in the War on Poverty, Mead offered a vision certain to make both liberals and the administration uncomfortable. On the one hand, his demand for ‘creative statecraft’ calls for substantial government activism, a renewed attack. On the other, his assertion that further progress will require attention to behavioral issues challenges the liberal attitude that what the poor need most is the empowerment that cash can provide. For the concerned public, something about Mead's argument rings true. The poverty we see - homeless derelicts, children of mothers who are children themselves, recipients who reach midlife never having known anything but welfare dependency, neighborhoods in which everyone receives support - hardly seems vulnerable to negative tax payments. And, as Mead suggests, eliminating the present system would create unacceptable hardship. Even if financial incentives are the prime movers in most areas of economic life, we are all a bit embarrassed by them; in the abstract it seems better to say that absent parents are obligated to support their children and able-bodied adults are obligated to work. That said, Beyond Entitlement offers few prescriptions for conduct of the creative statecraft that will devise obligations for the poor and provide for their enforcement. Even Mead's most successful WIN offices were working with only a small fraction of adults on assistance. Problems already encountered in implementation of work-welfare programs in several states suggest that ambitious intervention intended to reduce dependency is extremely difficult. In retrospect it appears that Mead's principal contribution was, as was Murray's, to open up the debate on welfare and to make reference to recipient responsibilities and obligations acceptable. But given the intellectual elbowroom provided by Murray and Mead, we are left with the hard work of program design and implementation and a continuing mandate to care for the poor.