Pushing Baltimore Forward
During my time as the mayor of Baltimore, I have undertaken numerous projects that have transformed Baltimore from an industrial center into a modern city progressing towards the 21st century. In 1992, we also finished construction on the Camden Yards Baseball Field that is the home of the Baltimore Orioles. I also brought the Ravens Football Franchise to Baltimore in 1996. In addition, we have also completed construction on the M&T Bank Stadium that will house the Baltimore Ravens. Having two major sports franchises and two state of the art facilities in the heart of Baltimore should generate greater wealth for the city (Schmoke 1998, 111). In addition, I have also made sure that the successful development of the Inner Harbor reached out to positively affect the surrounding neighborhoods by introducing new restaurants, businesses, museums shops, and hotels.
Economic and urban redevelopment are essential to rebuilding Baltimore, however it is not possible to rely on development exclusively and, it is clear that the past policies achieved limited success due to their over reliance on redevelopment as a solution to poverty.We need to get at the roots of poverty if we are to help the poorest of Baltimore’s poor. I believe that the roots causes of poverty stem from deficiencies in education and housing, poor public health policies, and increasing crime. These are not problems that can be solved by building a few fancy hotels or stadiums. We need to turn this “tale of two cities” (Schmoke 1998, 112) into one story.
The first problem I mentioned is the lack of quality educational programs available not only for children but also for adults. We are long past the point where an individual with a limited education could go out, get a factory job, and provide for their family. Jobs of the new service economy require a higher degree of education that most lower class Baltimoreans lack and face great difficulty acquiring. Simply put, Baltimoreans cannot advance in today’s world without education. That is why in 1994 I launched a new literacy program in Baltimore. The program includes two groups, the Baltimore Literacy Corporation, a government run group, and Baltimore Reads, a local non-profit (Schmoke 1998, 112). The two organizations combined forces to provide quality educational opportunities for both adults and children.
A second problem facing Baltimore is the fact that the poorest Baltimoreans have long been restricted to subpar housing that was not conducive to family living. We therefore decided to have several of these complexes torn down to make way for new row and town houses that would be available to all citizens of Baltimore. We want to also appeal to middle class residents in and outside Baltimore which would not only bring people back into the city but also diversity neighborhoods (Schmoke 1998, 112).
A third problem is the rampant cases of drug addiction and HIV/AIDS in Baltimore. It is estimated that 59,000 Baltimore residents suffer from a severe, deadly drug addiction (Schmoke, 1998, 113). This figure is staggering when one considers that the population of Baltimore city is approximately 675,000 people (Schmoke 1998, 111).Furthermore, research shows that approximately “85% of new HIV…infections are attributed to drug addicts using dirty needles” (Schmoke 1998, 113) in Baltimore. To combat this problem, I started a needle exchange program to halt the growth of HIV cases. The program was at first controversial and still is but it has been successful in reducing the rate of new HIV cases and providing drug addicts with access to drug rehabilitation programs.
What I would like to show is that Baltimore needs innovation more than anything. Much praise has been laded onto two welfare acts passed by President Clinton, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 1997. These programs are meant to help families get off welfare by finding work. These two programs however have been far from perfect. There is a federal requirement that at least 14,000 welfare recipients must find work by 1999 however Baltimore is projected to produce only 2,800 jobs in that time frame (Schmoke 1997, 78). My administration thus started a “Bridges to Work” program (Schmoke 1997, 79) that would give bus passes to welfare recipients so that they could access the suburbs where job growth is far greater.
Simply put, Baltimore needs more than economic development and federal acts. We need to reach out to the people to determine their needs and solve the real problems that lead to poverty. Such a process however also requires a great deal of innovation from city leadership and the people. I know my programs are not perfect but I believe that we are on the right track and that Baltimore will become a great city in the near future.
The Mayor, 1998
Schmoke, Kurt L. “Ingredients for a Successful City. “Vital Speeches of the Day. 1998, 110-113.
Schmoke, Kurt L. “Welfare Reform: A Work in Progress.” Vital Speeches of the Day. 1997, 78-80.
Levine, Marc V. “A Third World City in the First World: Social Exclusion, Racial Inequality, and Sustainable Development in Baltimore.” The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. Eds. Mario Polese and Richard Stren.Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. 123-155.
Photo: Blackpast.org
Photo: Pharmacy Exchange.http://www.exchangesupplies.org/needle_exchange_supplies/never_share_syringe/practice_notes/pharmacy_exchange.html
Welfare Reform in the 1990’s: A Mother’s Unanswered Questions
The year is 1996, and welfare reform changes are being made. My name is Yvette Tillman. I just turned twenty one several days ago, a birthday I celebrated with my mother, Maya, my boyfriend Jamal, and our two year old daughter Nia. Jamal and I have been dating since we were freshmen in high school, and while having a child at such a young age is a test to any relationship, I think it has only brought us closer. We are considering getting married soon so that we can provide Nia with a more stable family dynamic, especially since “research suggests that children are – on average – better off, both economically and psychologically, in stable two-parents families” (Sawhill, 17). With the recent changes to Maryland’s welfare policies, this might also mean that we would be eligible for more welfare funding. After I graduated from high school I tried to get a part time job, but shortly after I got pregnant with Nia, which limited my ability to work. I’m curious to see how the recent establishment of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families will affect me and my family, and how it will be different from AFDC. It seems like Bill Clinton has a much more democratic view of welfare and doesn’t support the conservative attitude that women like me are having children just to receive welfare payments.
Because these reforms are fairly recent, I do have some questions about how I will be affected by them. In the past, some have considered AFDC to be an entitlement to the poor, while it seems like TANF will be more of a privilege with established capped limits. I’ve even heard that some states are refusing to provide aid to mothers who cannot identify the father of their child. Conservatives are saying that a single mother and a child are not considered a family, and that condoning this family structure threatens the definition of what a family should be. Personally, I think it’s incredibly unfair to limit mothers who need aid just because the child’s father is not in the picture. I’ve also heard that the new TANF policy will establish a work requirement in order to continue receiving aid. I’m interested, especially because education will now also count towards the work requirement, which will hopefully encourage teen mothers to attend school regularly and still be able to provide for their kids. I’m still unclear on what Maryland’s policies will be, since they differ by state. What will be my work requirement? What if I can’t fulfill it? Will I stop receiving aid from the state? I am definitely considering the work training hours. While it might be hard right now, this would be a great option for me once Nia gets older, starts going to school, and doesn’t need my constant care.
Recent statistics are looking very positive for mothers like me. According to recent reports, employment of single mothers is on the rise, and black child poverty is steadily declining. However, it seems that the reforms are not a win-win for everyone. While many are leaving the welfare rolls, it is arguable whether they end up better or worse off in the long run. Once someone stops receiving welfare, there is no follow-up system in place to see how the person is faring financially, and if they are really no longer in need of assistance. The Earned Income Tax Credit and Medicaid childcare have been a great help to working families in reducing their welfare dependency. The work oriented welfare reforms are also encouraging people to go out and look for work, becoming more involved in the community and making themselves active citizens. The case load decline has also allowed each state to give more financial aid to the families remaining on welfare, in the last several years increasing the amount from $3,500 to $8,000 (Sawhill).
To me, it’s a bit unclear why the number of people on welfare has decreased so dramatically. My friend Racquel no longer needs to be on welfare because both she and her husband have recently found jobs and are now able to support themselves and their son. They were encouraged to get married by Racquel’s mother, who had to raise Racquel all by herself. Since she is aware of the hardships of being a single mother, she wanted her daughter to avoid the same challenges. There has also been a decline in food stamp participation by eligible families, as “food stamps were designed primarily for non-working families, and emphasize minimizing payment errors that are much more common among working than among non-working families” (Sawhill, 13). Since more people are becoming employed, I guess there isn’t as much need for food stamps. What worries me about potentially leaving welfare is that “less than half of those leaving welfare for jobs get help with child care expenses” (Sawhill, 13). I’m hesitant to go off welfare because I’m not sure if we would be able to manage with Nia without the additional help. But with the numbers of working mothers rising, I’m beginning to wonder if I should start looking for a job. Should I focus on work or education? I think I need more time to observe the potential effects of the TANF reforms before I make any changes and decisions, especially ones that would impact Nia.
All I know is that I want to provide my child with “a more structured home environment, more work-oriented values, and greater exposure…to good quality out-of-home care or education” (Sawhill, 17). Hopefully the reforms will create more opportunity for this in Baltimore, improving the potential for Nia’s future.
Yvette Tillman, single mother.
Baltimore, 1996.
Clinton and the End of Welfare
It has been three years since President Clinton has signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWOA), which replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Republican controlled Congress pushed two welfare reform bills that President Clinton vetoed. When he finally signed PRWOA, President Clinton received a lot of criticism from many left leaning Democrats – even three members from within his administration were not pleased. Many Democrats argued that PRWOA was too harsh on the poor and would hurt those on welfare more than it benefited them. President Clinton would not sign any bill that would hurt the poor. In fact, when President Clinton was running for office in 1992, he pledged to “end welfare as we know it”. He did not want people to rely on welfare; he wanted “to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life” (Clinton). PRWOA provided block grants to states to assist the poor. About 16.5 billion dollars would be given to states each year to create their own welfare system, as long as they follow specific federal requirements.
Since PRWOA has been signed, more welfare recipients have found jobs and are now working. According to data from the Department of Health and Human Services, “the percentage of working recipients reached an all-time high in fiscal year 1999 at 33 percent, compared to less than 7 percent in 1992 and 11 percent in 1996.” PRWOA led many welfare recipients to find jobs. “UPS hired 52,000; CVS/pharmacy hired 45,000, 60% of whom remain” (Wolf).
There have also been increased measures to establish paternity at birth, and child support collections have increased 68% from 1992 to 1997 (Administration for Children and Families). The child poverty rate has declined from “22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 – the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years” (Administration for Children and Families). With such promising statistics, we can see that President Clinton made the right choice in signing PRWOA into law in 1996.
President Clinton took other measures to ensure the success of welfare reform. He doubled “the earned-income tax credit in 1993 for lower-income workers; the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included $3 billion to move long-term welfare recipients and low-income, noncustodial fathers into jobs; the Access to Jobs initiative, which helped communities create innovative transportation services to enable former welfare recipients and other low-income workers to get to their new jobs; and the welfare-to-work tax credit, which provided tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire long-term welfare recipients” (Clinton). In 1997, he even increased the minimum wage and doubled “federal financing for child care” (Clinton).
In just three years, the president has done a great deal to end the dependence on welfare handouts by creating work incentives. This bi-partisan effort has done a great deal to change the welfare system for the better. Just from looking at some of the statistics in the past few years, PRWOA is proving to be a success.
The White House,
September, 1999
Sources:
Administration for Children and Families. “Third Annual Report to Congress – Executive Summary.” Administration for Children and Families. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 21 May 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annual3/annual3execsum.htm>.
Clinton, Bill. “How We Ended Welfare, Together.” The New York Times. 22 Aug. 2006. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html?_r=1>.
Wolf, Richard. “How Welfare Reform Changed America.” USA Today. Gannett, 18 July 2006. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-17-welfare-reform-cover_x.htm>.
photo credit: http://www.amistadresource.org/LBimages/image_09_01_030_clinton_prwora.jpg
The War on the War on Poverty
I’m sad to report that welfare devolution has continued under the Clinton administration with the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This act, which instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 1997, has implemented much more stringent requirements for welfare assistance and has therefore drastically cut the welfare rolls. The problem is that we have not seen an equivalent decrease in poverty rates. The problem is that when Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it” his goal was to simply cut people from the rolls without realizing that these people “don’t just disappear” (Sommerfeld, Reisch 309).
In fact, all of the people being cut from federal welfare have turned to nonprofits for help. Average demand for nonprofit services has increased by 26% since the passage of PRWORA, putting a huge stress on nonprofits (Sommerfeld, Reisch 303). This increased demand for nonprofit services is a result of the new time limits and work requirements embedded in welfare policy, which have drastically reduced the number of people that can qualify for federal assistance. For example, nobody can receive TANF funds for more than 60 months during their lifetime (Suppan 13). Furthermore, the requirements increase over time. In 1997, 20% of single mothers had to work at least 20 hours per week in order to qualify for welfare, by 2002 that number will jump to 50% of single mothers required to work at least 30 hours per week (Suppan 13).
The emphasis on work requirements may seem like a positive attribute of the new welfare legislation, and only 20 hours a week may seem very reasonable, but this policy does not take into account the fact that the state no longer provides childcare or transportation services, which were mandated by previous work requirements in welfare legislation (Suppan 13). Without these services it is nearly impossible for welfare recipients to hold a steady job. In addition, most welfare recipients do not have the skills to obtain anything other than “go nowhere jobs” with which they are “unable to keep up with the cost of living” (Sommerfeld, Reisch 305). Also, under the PRWORA’s “workfare” programs, which seek to provide employment for welfare recipients, Baltimore’s 209 public school custodial trainees make as little as $1.50 an hour (Suppan 22).
Overall, the “unspoken assumption of the new model is that the global economy will create jobs at wage and benefits levels to empower recipients of the Welfare Reform Act programs to become economically self-sufficient”, but this clearly has not been the result (Suppan 14). First of all, in order to provide employment for all of the people displaced by the cuts to welfare, job creation would have to quadruple (Suppan 14). Second of all, even if the opportunities were out there, welfare recipients do not have the resources to access them.
As a result of this dilemma, welfare recipients and former welfare recipients have turned to nonprofits for assistance. Through this “all our fears were realized; there is an increased demand for services with no corresponding increase in funding” (Sommerfeld, Reisch 312). Nonprofits are currently overwhelmed with the volume of demand. The number of seniors, dual parent families, single parents and grandparents who have formal or informal custody of their grandchildren has drastically increased since PRWORA (Sommerfeld, Reisch 305). In addition, the duration of people’s use of these services has increased. Nonprofits are doing their best to meet these new demands, but staffs are burnt out by the higher number of caseloads, extra and nontraditional hours and lack of sufficient funding (Sommerfeld, Reisch 306).
All of this would be doable if it was done in order to meet the goals of the nonprofit, but PRWORA has pushed nonprofits to restructure in accordance with its legislation. In particular, the emphasis on work requirements has forced nonprofits to focus on work-oriented programs instead of their original goals. Also, there is a newfound emphasis on numerical outcomes, data and evaluation measures rather than actual results for recipients. One of my colleagues has noted that “it has gotten to the point where this is not a social service agency any more. [It] more closely resembles a business” (Sommerfeld, Reisch 308). In regards to this, President Clinton should realize that if he wants to run the government like a business he has to be wary of focusing too much on quarterly earnings such as welfare cuts for risk of sacrificing the long term growth of the country and its citizens.
Sources:
Sommerfeld, David, and Michael Reisch. “Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Welfare Reform in the United States on NGOs.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14.3 (2003): 299-320. Print.
Suppan, Steve. Eye on America: Social Watch, 1997–2004. Publication. Minneapolis: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2005. Print.
Photo Source:
Stevens, Mick. “We Used to Feel Your Pain, but That’s No Longer Our Policy.” Cartoon. New York: New Yorker, 1995.
“Ending Welfare as We Know It”: A Theoretical Argument for Reform
Today, the welfare system needs a major restructuring. While poverty decreased in the early years of the Great Society, from 1964 to 1968, improvements stalled in the 1970s, the same time that the budget for welfare programs was at its highest. Indeed, government handouts to the poor, requiring neither a change in values nor a change in the behavior on the part of the recipients, increased markedly during this decade. Yet the number of those in poverty stagnated, halting two decades of steady decline (Murray, 58). Why did this happen? What does this mean for the structure of America’s welfare state? 
While many reasons are provided to counter the argument that poverty stagnated in the 1970s, despite the increase in the welfare state, these reasons fail to fully examine the economic data during this period. Arguments that a bad economy and an increase in older recipients halted this progress are negated by continuing economic growth in the 1970s, and by the stagnation in poverty decline for those below 65 years of age (Murray, 58-61). Further, “latent” poverty, meaning the dependence of recipients on government transfers, actually increased during the 1970s, reaching 22 percent by 1980. This data illustrates a troubling decrease in economic independence, a characteristic “of paramount importance in determining the quality of a family’s life” (Murray, 65). Indeed, economic independence is at the core of American values; to lose this sense of self-reliance and sufficiency indicates a larger problem in the culture of the poor, a problem reinforced through the welfare system.
Most troubling, perhaps, is the fact that young black males, a group targeted by welfare policies, “stopped engaging in the fundamental process of seeking and holding jobs” (Murray, 78). It is important to recognize that this pattern occurred during times of full economic capacity and did not hold true for older generations of black males (Murray, 80). Those born after 1950 entered a labor market with radically different rules than those born prior to 1950, leading to marked changes in behavior and a forfeit of “their futures as economically independent adults” (Murray, 82). Thus, the welfare system of the past two decades has not only led to an increase in government expenditures, but also to economic dependence and disincentives to work, reinforcing behaviors that lead to poverty.
Changing these behaviors should be at the core of any welfare policy. The days of government handouts need to end, while the days of government “hand-ups” should begin. A system “oriented toward work and responsibility” would reinforce the characteristics that constitute productive citizens, thereby creating a long-term strategy for welfare reduction (Ellwood, 2). By making work “the ultimate goal and expectation,” welfare recipients will realize that they can no longer be dependent solely upon government subsidies, but must also seek employment opportunities and take responsibility for their economic wellbeing (Ellwood, 2). Further, the ongoing issue of child poverty highlights the need for forced behavioral changes in family structures. Making absent fathers financially responsible, and reducing the number of children born to unwed mothers, would greatly reduce the number of single females with children in poverty, the largest impoverished group in the country. Changes in welfare policy, such as “promoting the establishment of paternity” and holding teen parents accountable for their children, would diminish the choices and behaviors that cause child poverty (Ellwood, 2).
The abject failure of increased government spending on welfare necessitates a massive overhaul in the structure of welfare policy, an overhaul focused on reinforcing economic independence through work incentives and behavioral changes. No longer should a citizen be able to maintain a living solely through a government check. No longer should the government continue spending taxpayer money on a broken, failed system. Indeed, welfare “as we know it” must be radically transformed into a viable, sustainable system, one that incentivizes productive, responsible behaviors and leads to a long-term decrease in economic dependency, and thus a decrease in poverty.
Sources
Ellwood, David. “Welfare Reform As I Knew It: When Bad Things Happen to Good Policies.” American Prospect. 19 Nov 2001: n. page. Print.
Murray, Charles. Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980. New York : Basic Books, Inc., 1984. 56-84 . Print.
Reviving Baltimore
The 1970s and 1980s have presented greater challenges for the great city of Baltimore. During the period, we witnessed a national decision to turn away from Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and towards what many are now calling Neo Federalism or Reaganomics.
Several city mayors across the nation faced challenges in retaining power and stability following this reduction in federal and state aid. They had no choice but to turn to powerful and wealthy special interest groups for necessary funds to maintain their cities. They instead became puppets of these groups.
Baltimore, however, managed to retain a significant degree of centrality. Because of this centrality and our having a focused solution to combating poverty, we have been able to fend off these special interest groups who would like to manipulate the government so that they could see their own private interests be met at the expense of the city (Fuchs 272). The efforts of past mayors have ensured that future mayors of Baltimore would be able to enact policy not for the sake of a few but for the sake of all (Krefetz 26).
Despite not having to face as much pressure from special interest groups, there have been other problems that we have encountered under this new economic policy. The main problem is that there has simply not been as much money coming into the city since the cutbacks on state and federal aid. The Great Society and the Nixon years, while not perfect, were useful financially for several reasons.
The second problem has been the ever-growing trend of suburbanization. More and more Baltimoreans have been leaving for Baltimore County in search of jobs and homes. These people are valuable taxpayers who could contribute to the city. The suburbs are becoming more and more independent and we need to find a way of retaining the wealth that is leaving the city. This issue is further compounded by the fact that Baltimore has almost completely lost its industrial economy. The industrial sector provided numerous low entry jobs to the lower class and ensured a healthy taxpayer base for the city (Levine 139). These lower class Baltimoreans do not have the means to support a city on their own. We must therefore change our city to cater to the middle and upper classes that have the means to support a city. Baltimore can no longer get by as an industrial town. We need to look elsewhere.
Baltimore must become a tourist town. I believe that making Baltimore more attractive to suburbanites and people from all over the nation will put money back into the city and help make Baltimore the great city we all know it is. A vibrant tourism industry would lead to job creation, especially for those in the greatest need of employment. In addition, it would bring outside wealth into the city. Obviously, we will continue to spend money on social programs aimed at helping citizens who are in dire need of economic and social assistance. However, it has come to the point where we must help our people help themselves and the best way to achieve this is through economic development.
The Inner Harbor is becoming one of the most envious pieces of real estate in the country and the model for how to revitalize a post-industrial city. We have already completed a massive multimillion-dollar convention center in 1979 that has successfully attracted several major conventions. These conventions in turn have provided numerous jobs for local Baltimoreans and have caused many outsiders to spend within our city. We also completed the Baltimore National Aquarium that had attracted 1.6 million people in its first year and has continued to attract large numbers of people (Levine 129). I am confident that we will show the world that Baltimore is a wonderful, one of a kind city to “live, work, and play” (Newman 129).
The Mayor, 1985
Levine, Marc V. “A Third World City in the First World: Social Exclusion, Racial Inequality, and Sustainable Development in Baltimore.” The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. Eds. Mario Polese and Richard Stren. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. 123-155.
Fuchs, Ester R. Mayors and Money: Fiscal Policy Making and City Politics in New York and Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Krefetz, Sharon Perlman. Welfare Policy Making and City Politics.New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976.
Conlan, Timothy. From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-Five Years of Intergovernmental Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.
Newman, Sandra J. “Is There an Urban Revival and What Does It Mean for Baltimore?” Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies, Occasional Paper no.24 (January 2000).
Photo credit: rpertlet http://www.orbitz.com/blog/2010/07/baltimore-vacation-celebrate-the-arts-in-maryland-this-summer/
Photo credit: Maryland State Archives.http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/comptroller/former/html/msa01489.html
Reaganomics and Welfare
When President Reagan first took office in the early 1981, the country was facing an economic recession. The President and his team worked swiftly to propose plans for economic recovery. As a part of the President’s administration I helped with the planning. We concluded that government spending had to be cut while simultaneously decreasing income taxes. “Reaganomics” would have a trickle down effect: the tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy would trickle down and benefit the poor.
In order to decrease government spending, the President needed to cut funding for unsuccessful programs. Many of the community action programs of the 1960s did not operate as originally intended and some were seen as failures. President Reagan decided to withdraw federal funding for many programs, but “responsibility for efforts such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and school lunches was shifted to individual states” (PBS). By giving these programs back to the states, each state can mold the programs to fit the needs of their constituents. A federally funded social service program must be the same throughout all states, and might not address all the problems each individual state has. Now, the state governments can address their state’s most important social issues through their own state run programs. Even President Reagan believed that state run programs would be more beneficial: “this will make welfare less costly and more responsive to genuine need because it will be designed and administered closer to the grass roots of people it serves” (Reagan). To avoid any problems, the federal government agreed to fund the programs for ten years during its transition to the state level. This shift to the local level “would save 25 percent in administrative costs” (Roberts).
In his 1982 State of the Union speech, President Reagan addressed those critics who believed decreasing government spending would hurt the poor. To reiterate his speech, “the federal government will subsidize 95 million meals every day” (Reagan) and will continue funding the Head Start program. Just last year, the federal government announced it would fund the Medicaid program in addition to the Medicare program.
The First Lady has been urging the President to create an anti-drug program. As a result, we have been doing a lot of research on the drug problem in America. Since drugs are a hazard on the community, especially in urban cities, an anti-drug program will only help the community. From the way our research is going, it looks as though we will be drafting program details soon and a will hopefully have the program ready to begin in the next year.
The White House
February 1985
Sources:
“Domestic Politics.” American Experience. PBS. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-domestic/>.
Reagan, Ronald. “1982 State of the Union Address.” Address. The Capitol, Washington, DC. Jan. 1982. American Experience. PBS. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/reagan-1982-address/>.
Roberts, Steven V. “FIGHTING OVER BLOCK GRANTS CATCHES STATES IN THE MIDDLE.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 02 Aug. 1981. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/02/weekinreview/fighting-over-block-grants-catches-states-in-the-middle.html>.
Photo credit: Getty Images
A Second Generation of Poverty, Under Funded and Marginalized
A Second Generation of Poverty, Under Funded and Marginalized
The year is 1985, and I can feel a shift in the way the country is thinking about poverty. It’s been four tough years since the passing of my mother, Gina Tillman. I never expected it to be so hard without her – I guess I never even realized how much she helped me out. All I know is that I have definitely been struggling to make ends meet, and the recent government reforms in welfare and society programs have only made my day-to-day more complicated and harder to manage.
My name is Maya Tillman, and I am a thirty three year old mother of three. You may have had the chance to meet my mother, Gina, a while back when President Johnson was in the process of enacting the Great Society programs in order to help families like mine. She died a couple of years ago from a heart attack – it was sudden. I was not prepared to lose her – she was my support system, providing whatever little money she had to help me raise my kids. Watching her raise me and Johnnie, I always told myself that there was no way I was going to raise my kids without a father, and I was successful for a while. Charles and I had Yvette, our first daughter, together when I was twenty three. The twins, Kenny and Robbie followed just two years later. Although Charles and I never got married, things were going really well for some time. Charles was working part time, and I was bringing in enough from welfare aid to keep us in our small apartment. But two years ago, Charles took a turn for the worse. He got mixed up in drugs, and eventually started using himself. When I saw that this habit was becoming detrimental to our way of life, and especially the lives of my children, I told him to get out. He packed his bags, and I haven’t seen him ever since.
I’m not going to lie – these days we’re struggling. With the recent welfare reforms enacted by President Reagan, I’m seeing less and less income from my welfare checks. My brother Johnnie, the only relative I have inBaltimore, tries to help out as much as he can, but he has his own family to take care of, and I can’t continue relying on him for everything. As I said, I’m getting less and less money every month, and with my kids getting older, the expenses are only growing. This makes me want to ask a question – how much of an obligation does the American society have to take care of its own people?
Ever since President Reagan came to office, we have been hearing about changes to the existing welfare programs, including budget cuts and less intervention from the federal level. My neighbor Lucille Phillips, a mother of seven with whom I currently share our brick rowhouse in West Baltimore, had her first baby in the 1960’s right after quitting the seventh grade at age 14. Because of the recent cuts in welfare funding, Lucille has been looking for her first job at the age of 39. The other day, she told me, “It’s not so easy to get jobs, but I can read and write. I can do pretty good, and I’m not ashamed to ask questions. I’m looking for main or housekeeper work. That’s the best with my education” (McNulty). I think that with many of the welfare programs receiving less funding, competition for jobs will only increase, making it harder for people like Lucille and I to be employed. Another one of the women on my block, Denise Green, a single mother of 3 and the head of her household, doesn’t even have the chance to look for work because she has to stay home in order to look after her children. She is hesitant to leave them with strangers, and “the welfare won’t pay family to watch them” (McNulty). Furthermore, the amount of federal money available for helping people get training and find jobs has been cut significantly during the last four years, and while “Baltimore found summer work for 17,5000 young men and women…this summer we hope to [have] 4,000 working.” Chances seem slim that Lucille, Denise and I will be a part of those four thousand new employees.
It seems like giving the city more flexibility without giving it the financial resources necessary to help those on welfare makes no sense. In 1982, 15.2% of Americans were living below the poverty line, and this number has only been rising during the last several years, with 868,000 more dropping below the line in 1983. I recently heard that the Reagan administration is even considering changing the definition of poverty to include noncash aid given to the poor, “money handed out in food stamps and subsidized housing” (McNulty). If these numbers are to be included in the poverty definition, only 10% of Americans would be considered to be living below the line. It seems like the current mindset of the administration is that “if the poverty levels were lowered by as much as a third, then the government doesn’t need to do as much, and therefore it can afford to spend less on the poor” (McNulty). Just seems like an excuse to reduce welfare aid to me. Politicians keep saying “that people are unemployed because they are not trying hard enough, that the jobs are there if they want them” (McNulty). All I know is that AFDC payments have been reduced by 36% during the last decade, making it harder for me to support my children, especially with my mother and Charles.
I hear many saying that welfare benefits only encourage a lack of responsibility, and that helping the poor is counterproductive, as it creates dependency on the state. But how am I, a single mother of three, supposed to support my children without any family or a husband? This raises not only anger, but also a lot of questions on my part. Is the government against me? Why is funding being cut? Will it really encourage others to go out and look for work, even when there aren’t enough jobs available? Is there a more logical solution to the welfare question? I hope the government changes their policies soon. Without work and a support system of relatives, I really rely on the welfare payments to help me take care of my family and provide for my kids.
– Maya Tillman, single mother on welfare, 1985
Source:
Chicago Tribune, March 17, 1985. Timothy J. McNulty. New Approaches To Poverty Alter Conscience Of Nation.
<http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-03-17/news/8501150831_1_poverty-great-society-americans>. (April 18, 2012).
New Federalism, New Problems
William Steig
While it’s true that the Great Society programs had many flaws, President Reagan’s New Federalism initiatives have done even more harm for nonprofit organizations. As a member of a nonprofit group I was initially very excited to hear about Reagan’s plan. New Federalism promised to return power to the state and local governments, cutting back on the debilitating bureaucratic constraints imposed by the Great Society and allowing for more flexibility and creativity on the ground level.
The reality of New Federalism, however, was very different. Reagan returned power to state and local governments not to increase their creative control or flexibility, but to pass off “administrative, financial and policy-setting responsibility [to] lower levels of government” (Palmer 15). This was a way to cut the size and costs of the federal government at the expense of state and local governments. For instance, federal aid packages that funded social welfare programs and community development organizations were singled out for the sharpest budget cuts. In fact in FY1982, Congress consolidated 77 categorical programs into 9 block grants and from FY 1981-FY 1985 reduced the income available to nonprofits by $35 billion (Palmer 12). These kinds of policies have severely prohibited nonprofits, such as my own, from carrying out our visions. We might have more control over how to spend our money, but this means nothing if we have no money to spend in the first place. As a result of these cuts, the individual recipients of our services and our communities as a whole are suffering. After all, nonprofit organizations play a substantial role in communities. In 1980, nonprofits in the U.S. spent $70 billion on health care, $25.2 billion on education/research and $13.2 billion on social services (Anheier, Seibel 221). Cutting funding for nonprofit groups has had negative effects on individuals, communities and the country as a whole.
To replace the significant cuts in federal funding for nonprofits, the Reagan administration has encouraged nonprofits to increase the number of private contributions they receive. But in order to hold constant the real value of nonprofits, charitable donations between 1983-1985 would have to increase 40% annually. In addition, it doesn’t help that the Reagan administration has changed the federal tax policy to raise the after-tax costs of private donations (Palmer 13). To replace federal funding Reagan is pushing nonprofits into a purely free market system, however these institutions were created to serve not to compete. Today, my organization is forced to spend valuable time fundraising and networking instead of implementing our programs and making a positive difference in our communities.
Not only did the Reagan administration cut funding for nonprofits, but he directly cut many social welfare programs. For example, he reduced extended unemployment benefits, increased patient cost sharing in Medicare and tightened the income eligibility restrictions in school lunch programs (Palmer 17). Overall, fewer people are eligible for programs and those that are still eligible receive fewer benefits. Also, these cuts have primarily affected the low-income families that have the greatest need for such programs.
Reagan’s policies may have advocated for more creativity and flexibility on the state and local levels, but the federal government continues to assert power over nonprofits by restricting their resources. The reality is that the government provides a huge proportion of the funding needed to operate nonprofits. If this funding is not reestablished, nonprofits will be unable to deliver and distribute the services that the government is responsible for providing and that the public desperately needs (Anheier, Seibel 229).
Camilla Seiler, Community Activist
April 17th, 1985
Sources:
Anheier, Helmut K., and Wolfgang Seibel. The Third Sector: Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1990. Print.
Palmer, John Logan, and Isabel V. Sawhill. The Reagan Experiment. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1982. Print.
Changing Domestic Priorities Project Ser.
Smith, Steven Rathgeb, and Michael Lipsky. Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993. Print.
Photo:
Steig, William. “Woman writing letter”. September 12, 1988. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/Dear-President-Reagan-You-know-as-well-as-I-do-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i8537630_.htm
The Great Society Programs: The Need for a Restructuring
The welfare programs of the Great Society, while admirable, have been a marked failure for the federal government, both in their success rates and in their administration. The federal government bureaucracy is too bloated and complicated to effectively administer these policies. Moreover, by imposing its will on the states, the federal government is diminishing the opportunity for experimentation and flexibility. Allowing for these would greatly enhance the effectiveness of the Great Society programs, as each state would be able to tailor funds towards its specific needs rather than adhere to a blanket method provided by the federal government. Indeed, the Great Society resulted in substantial “governmental fragmentation, inadequate coordination, growing intergovernmental conflict, and federal intrusiveness,” all of which hampered the administration of welfare policies (Conlan, 6). To avoid these problems, the role of the federal government in welfare policy must be reduced and delegated to the states, as they were before the Great Society.
The role of government in administering welfare programs not only should be restructured, but it also should be substantially reduced. Some economists such as Milton Friedman have argued for the implementation of a negative income tax, where people who earn below a certain amount receive supplemental income from the government rather than pay taxes and then 
receive a welfare check. One of the War on Poverty’s fatal mistakes was in assuming the poor’s needs were primarily social instead of economic (Danziger, 7). The NIT would address this economic need while substantially reducing the government’s role in welfare programs, and, in theory, would eventually eliminate the need for welfare programs altogether, instead using the tax code to establish a social safety net. Compared to AFDC, NIT “provides recipients greater freedom of choice…does not interfere directly in labor markets, and has relatively modest…work disincentives,” a crucial factor in welfare’s long-term effectiveness (Danziger, 11). Through greater nationalization of income maintenance, the NIT creates “a more uniform, effective, and equitable welfare system” by decentralizing federal involvement in traditionally state and local initiatives such as community development (Conlan, 20-21).
While an NIT would effectively reduce the role of government in welfare administration, it is imperative that this program also includes work incentives to avoid fostering a culture of welfare dependency. Without these incentives, the poor will become comfortable receiving a fixed income from the government, thus diminishing their motivation to seek employment and resulting in a continuous increase in the number of people on welfare. It is true that “the poor need support,” but the poor “also require structure” and inducements to become effective members of society (Mead, 22). By enacting limits and contingencies on welfare recipients, the poor would then be enabled, even enticed, “to achieve their long-run goals,” such as steady employment or a stable family life (Mead, 23). Enforcing certain productive values and targeting individual characteristics and incentives better motivates welfare recipients to seek employment and “integrates the seriously poor into the larger society” (Mead, 27-28).
The Great Society was correct in enacting a social safety net for America’s most vulnerable populations, but its methods and administration resulted in ineffective welfare programs and a bloated government bureaucracy. Intergovernmental relations need to be restructured, beginning with a reduction in the federal government’s role in welfare programs. This restructuring, coupled with work incentives and increased emphasis on personal responsibility, would create more effective policies in the long-term and reduce the number of welfare recipients. Indeed, welfare should no longer be considered a handout from the federal government, but rather a localized system that motivates individuals to become socially and economically responsible citizens.
Sources
Conlan, Timothy. From New Federalism to Devolution: Twenty-Five Years of Intergovernmental Reform. Washington, DC : The Brookings Institution, 1998. 1-35. Print.
Danziger, Sheldon. “Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton: What Role for Social Science?”. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1998. Print.
Mead, Lawrence M. The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1997. 1-38. Print.
Poverty Policy in Baltimore 