There was a lot going on this week finishing some research on the Death Tax that will be released tomorrow, securing a location for the 2nd Anti-ATF party coming in July, and of course the Gaspee Tea Party. We will also be announcing a new scholar this week as a Fellow on Health Care Policy. But even with all that going on, I can't let the week pass without commenting on welfare reform.
 
Long time OSPRI followers know that welfare reform was the first policy initiative we undertook. Technically, I started researching welfare reform when I was in the Master's Program at RIC (don't let me get started on that story).
 
What I found was that there are basically two types of welfare programs in the country, "work-first" models and "education-first" models. One provides financial, educational and auxiliary supports but the recipient must be working, even if it's on a volunteer basis. That's the work-first model. The "education-first" model provides the same supports but there isn't the strict requirement of work.
 
The federal government used to dictate how to implement welfare and since the 60's it did not have strict work requirements. But in the early 90's, then governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin was given a waiver from these rules and experimented with the work-first model (he called it W2). And it worked.
 
In 1996, President Clinton "changed welfare as we know it" and signed a bill that allowed all states to design their own system. After 10 years the welfare caseloads had been reduced by 60% and according to the Urban Institute, 63% of those leaving the roles were working. Today, states, not the federal government, decide what model of welfare is provided.
 
Most states followed Thompson and designed some form of work-first program. A few states, like Rhode Island, stuck with the failed education-first model. That was until last year. Now Rhode Island has a work-first model and according to the Providence Journal, the Catholic Diocese wants to put a stop to it.
 
It is important to remember what our success rate was. When the new reforms were implemented it was reported that 54% of welfare recipients in Rhode Island had been on the program for more than 5 years and 27% had been on longer than 10 years. A welfare program that can't get people off of government dependency in that time simply doesn't work!
 
Personally, I don't think the Governor's reforms went far enough. We still rely too heavily on government and not enough on family, faith and friends. But it's a start.
 
So, it is difficult to understand why the Diocese would not support something that empowers people with self-sufficiency. More difficult to understand is that by opposing the governor's reforms they are supporting a program that has proven itself unsuccessful at reducing poverty and since the 1960's has been one of the most significant detriments to our family structure.
 
It might be helpful to review a piece we published in January of last year (click HERE). The only thing that has changed is that our deficit has gotten bigger.

Onward and upward,

 

Bill

Broadcast dates and times: