Dear Mickey and Jonah,
Like Mickey, I was greatly concerned about what Jason DeParle would say in his book. Having talked with him on many occasions over the years, especially during the great welfare debate of 1995-96, and having read many of the stories he filed with the New York Times and other outlets, I expected a diatribe about the evils of welfare reform, Democrats like Mickey Kaus who strongly supported the end of guaranteed benefits and the work requirements, and above all those dastardly Republicans. Not only was I amazed when I read his book, but I would say without hesitation that it is one of the two or three best books ever written about the nation’s poor.
The details about the book given by both of you are largely consistent with my own reading. But because DeParle, joined by both of you, calls for more support for poor and low-income working families, I think it important to at least mention the level of support they already receive. We now supplement the earnings of low-income workers through several major programs:
1) about $32 billion in cash, delivered through the tax code in a program called the Earned Income Tax Credit;
2) well over $20 billion in day-care and preschool education programs (including Head Start) that provide care while parents work and often aim to promote child development;
3) many billions of dollars in food and nutrition-assistance programs for both adults and children; and
4) a huge and rapidly growing Medicaid program, supplemented by an additional health-care program, which pays the medical bills of all children in poor families and many additional children living in families above the poverty level but with incomes under 200 percent of poverty (about $38,000 for a family of four in 2004).
In addition, many of these families receive support through various transportation programs, two additional tax credits, several housing programs, and a blizzard of education and training programs. Most of these programs have been expanded or created since the late 1980s. I mention this extensive list of programs both because they demonstrate the nation’s substantial commitment to helping poor and low-income families that work and because they provide essential context for considering the question of how much more taxpayers should be expected to spend on these families.
The question of costs is especially important now because of the federal budget deficit. President Bush promised during the campaign that he would cut the deficit by half within five years—a course of action supported by many analysts on both the left and right. It borders on certainty that the deficit will not be reduced by increased taxation, thereby making it certain that for the next several years the federal government will cut more programs than it expands.
Even so, like both of you, I am concerned that most of the mothers leaving welfare have low earnings—a point that is powerfully illustrated in the most concrete possible terms by DeParle’s description of the financial condition of Angie and Jewell and their children. But I do not think significant additional government funds will be forthcoming in the next several years to provide further subsidies to boost their income.
So how can they increase their income? Perhaps low-income mothers could improve their wages over time by staying in the labor force. Although research shows that some mothers do improve their wages over time, most studies show that wage growth is slight. I think most scholars would agree that most mothers like Angie and Jewell will increase their earnings only if they can get additional education and training. Using money that was included in the 1996 welfare reform law, the Department of Health and Human Services is now conducting large-scale studies to explore ways to help these mothers improve their education so that they can command higher wages. Despite what we might learn from this and similar research, I think it will be many years before there are programs that help low-income mothers boost their wages.
Another way low-income mothers could improve their economic standing would be to get married. Surprisingly, DeParle seemed to support the Bush administration’s plans to promote marriage among young couples who have babies outside marriage and who choose marriage for themselves. We know from research conducted by Sara McLanahan and her colleagues at Princeton that about half of these young couples are cohabiting when the baby is born, and an additional 30 percent say they are in a loving relationship. Moreover, most of them talk openly about marriage and even believe that there is a good chance they will actually get married. What could be wrong with providing them with counseling, job training, relationship education, and so forth to help them move toward a goal they have selected for themselves?
I do agree with Mickey that there is no evidence that these programs will work. Personal involvement with the programs and with those who have carefully studied these couples, however, convinces me that there are many obstacles to helping them create healthy, lasting marriages. Not the least of these obstacles are domestic violence and lack of sexual fidelity. Despite these problems, I think that spending $3 billion trying to find out how to promote marriage is a worthwhile investment. Certainly, based on solid research, there is no doubt that increased marriage rates would be good for the couples themselves, for their children, and for society. It would be difficult to read DeParle’s description of the cohabiting relationship between Jewell and Ken without concluding that they and their children would be better off if they made a permanent commitment to each other.
As Mickey says, there is a lot more to say about the role of males—a topic to which we all should return.
—Ron
P.S. I appreciate Mickey’s comment about my role in drafting the welfare reform bill and helping move it through Congress. The truth, however, is that many people were more central to the final success of the bill than any obscure Republican staffer.
