Welfare Reform Should Be Based On Truth, Not Myth

Idaho Gov. Phil Batt this week endorsed the package his Welfare Reform Advisory Council presented to him.

Many of the council’s 42 proposed changes to Idaho’s present welfare system are innovative, creative and beneficial to the poor. Unfortunately, they are overshadowed by the draconian and punitive nature of some of the most important elements of the plan.

The most drastic of these is a mandatory two year-limit to any individual on welfare. This cutoff is fueled by common myths about welfare that the council says it recognizes. Unfortunately, the council’s actions speak otherwise. The myths are these:

Welfare rolls are rising sharply. Fact: The number of people in Idaho who are on welfare has been relatively constant since 1970, despite the fact that Idaho’s population has risen greatly.

Total cost of the program has grown dramatically. Fact: The dollar total spent on welfare in Idaho has been relatively constant since 1975. Adjusted for inflation, the real amount spent has fallen 50 percent.

Money a family on welfare receives enables its members to live “high on the hog.” Fact: The average monthly family stipend is approximately $300. When adjusted for inflation using 1984 dollars, the stipend has fallen from $430 to $190 since 1970.

Welfare is placing a severe burden on taxpayers and constitutes a high percentage of the state budget: Fact: The portion of Aid to Families with Dependent Children paid by the state is approximately $9.2 million, which is less than 1 percent of the state budget.

Welfare recipients remain on the program for years. Fact: 77 percent of welfare recipients are on the program for less than 18 months. Approximately 50 percent are on the program less than six months.

Welfare recipients tend to have more children, to take advantage of higher welfare stipends. Fact: There is no evidence to support this belief in Idaho.

Idaho has a high number of welfare recipients compared with other states. Fact: Idaho is dead last in the nation in the number of public aid recipients as a percentage of the population.

There are many other social programs that the poor can fall back on if they are cut from AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) welfare. Fact: Virtually all social and public assistance programs are under attack and face severe cutbacks. Every program will be affected. AFDC is the last safety net.

These are the myths that fueled many of the advisory council recommendations. One of the most frightening aspects of the council was the cavalier attitude members exhibited during public hearings held throughout the state. Social engineering of this magnitude is a dangerous business; its fruit may be poverty, hunger and starvation.

True welfare reform cannot even begin without providing child care and job training for young parents. The blunt fact is there is no money to fund these programs adequately.

Another frustrating aspect of these proposed reforms is the public’s hypocrisy about welfare.

Who are the true welfare “kings” and “queens” in Idaho? They are more likely to reside on Idaho farms than on AFDC. Idaho farmers received $170 million dollars in federal subsidies last year. In contrast, the total federal and state expenditure on AFDC was only $31.2 million.

As an economist, I can tell you that agricultural subsidies tend to favor large farm corporations over small farmers. They tend to hurt the environment on balance, increase the cost of food to the consumer and increase economic inefficiency. Yet, no one is suggesting a two-year cutoff for farmers. No one is accusing them of lacking personal responsibility or calling them leeches behind their backs.

Farmers aren’t the only culprits. A fair number of tenured professors with guaranteed lifetime paychecks at Idaho’s public universities support this welfare reform. Many have never had a private sector job.

The truth is that we all receive government benefits of one kind or another. We all live in glass houses.

My hero in graduate school was economist Milton Friedman, a conservative known as the “Barry Goldwater of economists.” His solution to welfare reform was something called a negative income tax, which would provide the poor a minimum guaranteed stipend that would be gradually reduced as an individual’s income rises.

Not even Friedman suggested that we abandon the social safety net. This illustrates the extremism of many of today’s politicians. Unfortunately, it will be tomorrow’s children who suffer.

xxxx