I am confused. This is hardly a rare occurrence, so let me explain.
Thirty years ago we held a great debate about welfare, with Bill Clinton running on a platform of "ending welfare as we know it." In 1996 he did just that, eliminating the old AFDC program that handed out money without limit to parents with kids, regardless of whether or not they worked. It was replaced by TANF, which combined incentives to work with a time limit for receiving benefits.
Fast forward to 2021 and Mitt Romney has proposed consolidating several current federal benefits in favor of a single new one. TANF would go away entirely; the EITC would be reduced; and the childcare tax credit would be eliminated. In their place would be a simple monthly check sent to anyone with children. The checks amount to $350 per month for young children and $250 per month for kids over age 5.
This is a universal program, so it includes everyone—regardless of whether they have jobs. This means that if you're a single mother of two who doesn't work—the hated target of the 1996 welfare reform—you would receive about $7,200 per year with no strings attached. Adjusted for inflation, this is more than the average AFDC payment for a family of three in 1995.
And that's if you have two children. If you're one of the even more hated "welfare moms" with a brood of four kids, you'd receive upwards of $15,000 per year. There's no time limit on these payments and no incentives to get a job. In fact, by reducing the EITC and the childcare tax credit, Romney's plan reduces the incentive to find a job.
What am I missing here? Am I misinterpreting Romney's plan? Or has enough time gone by since 1995 that even Republicans are no longer upset at the idea of no-strings welfare payments with no time limits?
I used to work for a state agency in the 80's and 90's that dealt with problems people were having with state government. One of our main sources of complaints was welfare recipients. It was common to have a grandma on welfare calling to straighten out her daughter's AFDC case. Having generations on welfare was poisonous. Put the AFDC income together with publicly subsidized housing and food stamps and people could live on that. Based on many contacts with such people, I welcomed TANF with its work requirements. Single moms with 3 and 4 kids is a bad recipe for social improvement.
Democrats need to counter offer with an Andrewyangian UBI.
Why do Democrats need to counter at all?
If it's a good deal for what are supposed to be the constituency of Democrats, FSCKING TAKE IT!!!
Isn't the goal supposed to be "improving the lot of the weaker", not "winning the political point"?
I wish I thought I understood anything as well as you think you understand those people.
There can be people who game the system--there always will be some. But when following the regulations becomes a full time job, then that traps people in poverty too.
Not sure how many broke out of poverty--but I can see how one can become jaded. You see the same names over and over again, and you'll remember those. You wont remember those who moved on.
Yikes indeed. Yikes, Yikes, Yikes and more yikes.
I knew it was a scam. I read to the bottom. OMG Kevin!!!
It looks like its "paid for" by permanently eliminating the STATE and LOCAL TAX Deduction!
Putting that deduction back in, and eliminating the giant eff U to New York and California has to be one of the first things on any Biden list.
Why? That deduction overwhelmingly benefits well-off people. Why is it so urgent to put money in the pockets of educated professionals with high incomes?
No it doesn't, it benefits folks who live in host cost/high tax states, aka Blue States. I know a bunch of middle class, not upper class folks in NJ that are hit with the cap. Me? I've come close living in Northern VA in a house I bought almost 20 years ago for a lot less than it's worth today and is taxed at it's present day value.
It helps subsidize big government in the blue states (you know, those highly productive areas that keep the rest of the country afloat and enjoy much higher HDI than the red states). So it's a good thing. We need more of that in America.
I wonder how many of these female headed households were trapped in poverty due to a lead filled childhood that affected their ability to function as an adult?
Um, Free Money for Mormons? You know, the ones with lots of kids, living in a comparatively affordable state?
True.
If Utah is going to lose the economic impact of federal outlays to the NPS & BIA lands in the Beehive State, they need some other mechanism to keep the DC-to-SLC pipeline flowing.
Wow, just wow!
Now rewrite this post as "Um, Free Money for blacks" and see how well it's received...
Hell, how about just "Um, Free Money for orthodox jews"?
Like I always say, you're still allowed to hate in America, as long as you choose the right groups to hate.
Nothing in Jimmy's post expressed hatred towards Mormons. If you see hatred where there is none, maybe you're the source of the hatred you see around you.
My fallible memory. I could have sworn AFDC was only for single mothers, that there was a no man in the house rule. Turns out that was ended in 1968 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children. My bad.
That said, as a society we often repeat mistakes, when they're far enough back in the past.
In this case, it looks more to me like us learning from our mistakes.
Or maybe it is just that pretty much zero Republicans besides Romney are behind this?
Bingo. They're all in for ending current programs--but never get around to supporting the replacement.
Grover Norquist is already putting the stopper in the tub.
Is it welfare if all families with children get it?
Where is the research that people are stuck in poverty if you give them minimal support?
Lots of racist anecdotes about AFDC but show me the evidence it was bad for society?
Poisoning black families with auto and paint lead was racist.
If you are concerned about black and hispanic test scores then make the payment only useful for tutoring (and maybe nutrition?).
I sort of think this post is racist.
Can I interest you in a nice Lemonjello or Oranjello in this trying time?
I agree. Slightly queasy reading this. OMG, a family of 5 getting $15000. They will be living such a life of luxury they won't get a job. But maybe they could afford day care and get a job. Or what about the research that shows that so far, getting guaranteed income of $1000 month does not keep people from working and greatly improves quality of life. And I agree, is it welfare if everyone gets it. It is only bad if poor people get it? What about if a person making $50,000 a year decided to cut their hours or stay home? Would there be the same indignation? smh
AFDC = Aid for Families with Dependent Children
TANF = Trouble Asset Relief Program (wait...what???)
EITC = Eat IT Commie (no--that can't be right)
Don't fall into the trap of analyzing whether any Repub, even Romney, actually cares about any policy of any kind.
I would bet this just saves some money. It probably that too many people qualify for the EITC.
The chance that this is reform, or even some expansion of benefits is zero.
I don't get it. If you believe in the benefits of working, why wouldn't you *increase* the EITC?
For that matter, isn't cranking up the EITC the equivalent of a higher minimum wage, only with the added benefit that instead of some small business having to pay the salary increase, it comes out of general funds, where the wealthiest would effectively be paying that salary increase.
The EITC is also dumped into your bank account only once a year, and a lot of parents who should get it don't because they don't understand how to file their taxes correctly, or because they make more than the income cutoff.
I think what Romney is proposing is monthly checks to parents, all parents. So it would turn into a steady flow of cash that they could count on to pay monthly bills, even if their income permanently or temporarily rises at work and they exceed the EITC cutoff in some years.
Comment no. 1: Romney is about to be excommunicated from the GOP. Is he looking around for new friends?
Comment no. 2: The advantages that Romney names are all quite real. Instead of applying for x benefits at x (or more) different offices you apply once for the whole enchilada. Saves money for the government as well. I think I would tend to like this idea.
Comment no. 3: The deduction of state taxes benefited wealthy people more than the rest of us (this is true for all deductions BTW). I can't really find any truly regressive elements in the proposal; it is fairly progressive.
As a former social services worker, I have a few comments. To the Romney plan, kudos for including everyone, not means-testing, like Social Security, ensures widespread acceptance and longevity. Re encouraging couples to have children (currently couples are discouraged by our venal economy), not sure it's a good idea given that there's too many humans on the planet. Re the comments above about welfare and work, eliminating AFDC resulted in more child poverty, plus we have no child care plan in this country that enables women with young children to go to work. Putting pressure on young families is not a good strategy for a healthy society but it's all we've been doing for more than 50 years.
Good start. But keep the EITC intact, restore the pre-Trump SALT, and pay for RomneyBucks by reducing the tax preferences for unearned income.
"What am I missing here?"
The fact that it's universal to all parents. Americans love free cash from the government, as evidenced by the popularity of COVID checks last year and soon this year. Meanwhile, they hate it when they miss out on the checks that their family/friends/neighbors got. Not shocking that a program that hands out cash for merely being willing and able to procreate is more popular than programs that hands out cash for procreation only by people below a certain income level.
Here we have the usual failure to learn from other countries. Canada has had a program of payments to all families with dependent children since 1945. It's been changed a few times during the subsequent 75 years, but it has never noticeably discouraged people from seeking work, nor has it succeeded in motivating people to have enough children to keep the country's birth rate up to replacement rates. It has made life a bit more comfortable for many children in poor families.