Plus, what's wrong with today's Nina Bernstein anti-welfare-reform brief. ...

The Curse of Federalism: Isn't there something odd about complaints from conservatives Grover Norquist and David Keene that a DOJ proposal allowing "state and local law enforcement agencies to track down illegal immigrants  ... would set a dangerous precedent by empowering local jurisdictions to enforce many federal laws." Isn't federal law, like, the law? Aren't state and local officials obligated to enforce it, just as they're obligated to enforce the Constitution? ... Local police apparently complain that requiring them to actually enforce these laws "would jeopardize their relations with immigrants" -- and, say Norquist and Keene, "mechanisms already exist to foster federal-local cooperation in this area." But if they were effective mechanisms (e.g. state officials calling in the feds) then they would already have jeopardized relations with immigrants, no? The reason relations aren't jeopardized is that the "mechanisms" are ineffective. .. More damningly, the NYT account  makes it clear that even at this late date the "White House aides" (read, presumably, Karl Rove) are still worried "that the proposal could lead to racial profiling and lawsuits ... and alienate Hispanic voters." ... Note to unnamed White House aides: If you don't pay attention to Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan, maybe  Nicholas Kristof  is more to your liking ... Even Maureen Dowd is (somewhat inconsistently) arguing that the FBI is too "timid about racial profiling." ... P.S.: We'll know President Bush really thinks there's a "war" on not when he gives a stern speech at West Point but when he's willing to risk Rove's Great Hispanic Suck-up. ... P.P.S.: Norquist's complaint is of a piece with his longtime advocacy of a "leave us alone" coaliton (or, as Arianna Huffington puts it, "the Leva Salon"). But if there is one example of the sort of legitimate expectation that needs to be "reexamined" (i.e., pared back) as terrorists acquire increasingly ready access to means of mass destruction, it's the idea that the government must "leave us alone." ...

The Curse of Separated Powers: Let's see -- Pakistan's government helps us in the war against terrorism, and asks in exchange for lower tariffs on textile imports. The U.S. Congress says "no." Russia helps us in the war against terrorism, and asks in exchange that the Cold War Jackson-Vanik restrictions on trade be repealed. The U.S. Congress says "no". Turkey helps us out in the war against terrorism, and is promised trade benefits in return. But, according to the WSJ's "Washington Wire," Congress last week said "no" despite lobbying from Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Powell. ... Do other nations take our promises of economic rewards seriously? Will they continue to be suckers (falling for promises our executive branch can't make good on) in the future? ... I remember when Nicaraguan voters threw out the Sandinistas. American news reports said the Nicaraguans were hoping for massive U.S. aid.There were pleny of extremely good reasons to throw out the Sandinistas, but hopes for massive aid were not among them. Have we ever really delivered the economic goods as a reward in recent decades -- in the form of either foreign aid or trade benefits -- other than in the cases of Israel and Egypt? ...

What's the flaw in Nina Bernstein's front-page NYT story  that seemingly ties welfare reform to a decline in marriage? The studies Bernstein publicizes looked at single mothers who were on welfare. Of these women, those who kept getting the old-style welfare checks got married at higher rates than those who went through welfare-to-work programs. But the studies didn't look at what happened to women whonever go on welfare in the first placeonce they know that if they do they will have to go to work. Indeed, even if welfare reform mildly discourages those who are on welfare from getting married that factor could be outweighed by the fact that there are less than half as many people on welfare as there used to be. That's why national figures might show, as they do, that a smaller percentage of children are living in single-parent homes, while marriage is increasing among African-Americans. ... Bernstein acknowledges the conflict between her two studies and the national figures, but then suggests that her studies are superior because they "focus on welfare applicants." No! They present an incomplete picture because they "focus on welfare applicants," not on the much larger group of people who might go on welfare -- or, more precisely, who might have gone on welfare under the old system. ... It's the overall national marriage numbers we want to affect, not the numbers for those who happen to be on welfare, and since welfare reform in 1996 the overall national numbers have been going in the right direction for the first time in generations. (Bernstein also implies that the economy caused this effect, but previous good economies didn't.) ...

Nor do Bernstein's two studies of welfare applicants in two states seem well-positioned measure the larger cultural changes that can occur when all potential welfare recipients in all states know the rules have changed acrosss the nation. It matters less if there's a differential between those in welfare programs and those in welfare-to-work programs if both are moving in a pro-marriage direction. Who's to say that even those in the "control" group receiving traditional welfare after the 1996 reform weren't affected by the reform? Did they stop reading the papers or listening to the news or to popular music? ...

That said, it's not crazy to think that greater self-sufficiency for single mothers might lead to less marriage. (Women in these programs are often told "Yes, you can make it on your own!") It's just that this effect doesn't seem to be winning out over the other pro-marriage effects of welfare reform (like wanting to have someone to help you out, if you're going to have to juggle work and parenting). ... Nor can Bernstein have it both ways -- if welfare reform is making women less likely to marry because it is making them richer and more self-sufficient, then it can't be making them less likely to marry because they "are now doing much worse" economically than before. (Bernstein skillfully tries to fudge this contradiction in the first paragraph on this Web page. She's still "the Advocates' Advocate"!). ...

Click here to see the anti-reform broadside that is the press release for the larger study from which Bernstein plucks her marriage angle. The release mentions that "[i]n Connecticut, for example, women participating in the state's Jobs First program showed a lower marriage rate." But the study also looked at Florida and California. Hmmm. What happened to marriage rates there? Answer: Only Connecticut appears to have had a "control group" of women who stayed on old-style welfare. Still, in California and Florida, as far as I can see, two different "waves" of interviews, two years apart, were undertaken, and the text says "self-reported marital status did change significantly between waves 1 and 2, rising from ...7% to ... 12%." This statistically-signifcant increase is then waved away as a possible "artifact of sampling design and mother age." But is it? ... The full 102-page PDF-format study is here. You, the reader, decide whether my suspicion -- that if indicia of marriage had gone down they would have made a huge deal of it and maybe gotten Nina Bernstein interested! -- is correct. (See esp. page 60.) ... P.S.: The share of these single mothers who lived in "a household with one other adult" also rose, from 29% to 34%. ...

Final note: Contacted by Bernstein, Bush HHS official Wade Horn doesn't even put up a fight. That's apparently because Horn sees the studies as serving his purpose of getting $300 million in "marriage promotion" money. "What those two studies say to me is, if you up the work requirement and do nothing to support healthy marriages, you get less healthy marriage," Horn says.... In other words, we need "marriage promotion" to undo the supposed bad effects of work requirements! Aaargh! The administration's "marriage promotion" idea has already done more than $300 million in damage if it means that officials like Horn will no longer bother to defend the 1996 welfare reform and its positive effect on marriage. ... Note that Bernstein doesn't call on someone (Bruce Reed?) who would have an unambiguous ideological interest in knocking down the study. Instead, she brilliantly quotes a Bush official who has an interest in agreeing with her, knowing that having contacted a Bushie she'll appear to have discharged the obligation to 'call both sides.'...

What, sunup already?

AFSCME v. Jeb: "Labor leaders have started a multi-pronged campaign" against Florida governor Jeb Bush, reports the Florida Times Union, which cites three issues that have particularly angered the unions. ... It turns out, somewhat predictably, that a) "labor leaders" means mainly "[p]ublic sector unions, such as teachers and state workers;" and b) of the three contentious issues cited by reporter Jim Saunders

1. "vouchers so that students can leave chronically failing public schools and attend private schools"
2. making it easier to fire and hire state civil servants, and
3. "plans to shift state jobs to private contractors"