Welfare

by Edward Grabianowski
October 2004

The Issue
Welfare is one of the main issues that separate the conservatives (Republicans) from the liberals (Democrats). Conservatives oppose "government handouts," and for them, welfare is a prime example of "big government" trying to fix every problem by throwing taxpayer money at it. Liberals view welfare as a necessary safety net, helping to insulate the poorest members of society from the abysmal conditions the lower classes had to endure for much of human history.

Many Americans find themselves in between these two views -- they hate the idea of someone getting paid for doing nothing, but the idea of a child living without enough food to eat is even more horrifying.

The result has been a series of welfare reform acts that aim to protect children from poverty, but also place time limits on welfare benefits and provide incentives for welfare recipients to find stable jobs. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) act was passed in 1996, but expired without reauthorization in 2002. It has been operating on short-term extensions ever since, the latest of which will expire in September 2004.

In 2003, the Republican-majority Congress pushed for various welfare acts that increase the work requirements for welfare recipients and keep the same level of funding for child care. Democrats have sought to increase child care funding.

Although welfare reform has succeeded in cutting the number of people on welfare, critics contend that many people were removed from welfare simply by lowering the levels at which a family was eligible.

Badnarik: Position and Record
Libertarians are generally the exact opposite of socialists. As such, they abhor social and economic welfare programs of almost any kind. Badnarik feels that aid to the poor should be handled entirely by charities, with no government involvement at all and no taxpayer money used. He would cut taxes (by a lot) and hope that everyone would use the extra money to fund charities.

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
In his 1999 book, "A Charge To Keep," Bush outlined his feelings on welfare and personal responsibility:

    The new culture said if people were poor, the government should feed them. If criminals are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not in prisons, but in social programs. People became less interested in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and more interested in pulling down a monthly government check. A culture of dependency was born. Programs that began as a temporary hand-up became a permanent handout, regarded by many as a right.

This notion of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" more or less defines Bush's welfare policy; that is, the poor are responsible for finding their own solutions to their problems.

Record
As governor of Texas, Bush increased the use of private companies to administer assistance programs. He also started pushing for church-administered welfare, a concept he brought into the presidency with his "faith-based initiative." Also while in Texas, Bush started a welfare-recipient fingerprinting effort in an attempt to reduce fraud.

Bush placed strict time limits on welfare benefits in Texas, and set work levels that poor families had to meet in order to receive any benefits.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry has supported the popular notion of ending "welfare dependency." His stated goal is to put everyone who is able to work into a stable job. He supports affordable child care, welfare for legal immigrants, and "refocusing other social policies on the new goal of rewarding work."

At one point, Kerry voiced some support for trimming social security benefits for seniors who already have plenty of money, but he hasn't thrown his weight behind this proposal, likely for fear of alienating senior voters and the AARP, who would strongly oppose such a change.

Record

  • 1998 - Voted yes to allow welfare recipients the option of meeting their work requirements through enrollment in college.
  • 1997 - Voted yes to reinstate food stamp benefits for children of legal immigrants.
  • 1997 - Vote yes to an amendment that would allow vocational education training to count toward welfare work requirements for two years instead of one.
  • 1996 - Vote no to an amendment that would require food stamp recipients to work 20 hours a week.
  • 1996 - Voted yes to allow states to use federal funds to provide non-cash assistance to families that have used up their cash welfare benefits.
  • 1996 - Voted yes to an amendment that would limit welfare benefits to people convicted of drug crimes.
  • 1996 - Voted no to an amendment that would allow random drug testing on welfare recipients.
  • 1995 - Voted yes to reform welfare.
  • 1992 - Voted no to kill an amendment that would reduce federal welfare funding to states without "workfare" programs (in other words, he supported the amendment).
  • 1992 - Voted yes to kill an amendment that would allow states to withhold welfare from parents whose children don't attend school (in other words, he was against the amendment).

Nader: Position and Record
Nader likes to contrast welfare for the poor with one of his favorite targets: corporate welfare. Nader emphasizes the restrictions, time limits, and "means tests" which restrict welfare benefits only to the poorest members of society, while no such restrictions are placed on the welfare corporations receive in the form of huge tax breaks, government grants, and other incentive programs. "The Corporate Welfare programs in the federal government are double the poverty welfare programs -- if you look at tax expenditures and all the direct subsidies and giveaways and bailouts and loan guarantees, etc.," said Nader in a 1996 NPR interview.

In terms of policy, Nader would enact what he calls "a domestic Marshall plan" that would include creating jobs through numerous public works projects.

Record
Because he has never held a political office, Nader has no voting record on welfare.

Sources: