SPEAKING OF POVERTY:
Mr. President, We Want Our Slogan Back
By Marian Wright Edelman
To the surprise of many, President Bush's new welfare reform
plan requires states to dramatically increase the work requirements for families
moving from welfare to work, raises the number of hours mothers of small children must
work to receive benefits, and does it all with not one thin dime of additional federal
funds for child care.
This is surprising because during his 2000 campaign President Bush was
so intent on showing his compassionate conservatism and interest in the futures of the
youngest, most vulnerable Americans that he co-opted the Children's Defense Fund's own
motto to "Leave No Child Behind."
Mr. President, we want our slogan back.
The Bush Administration's welfare proposal as outlined undermines the
very aim he says he espouses.
The plan would leave millions of children behind without safe,
affordable, quality child care when parents work. So the big question is, who is going to
take care of our children while their parents are working? Child care is the critical
component if mothers leaving welfare are required to work, work more hours, and if the
welfare of the child is not to be sacrificed. And child care is essential to millions of
other low income working mothers who have not been on welfare and do not want to be, but
who cannot make ends meet because they can't afford child care.
Under the president's welfare proposal, states, which
now have more than one-third of their adult welfare recipients participating in work
activities, would be required to raise participation levels to 70 percent. The White House
would allow less job training to count as a work activity and double the number of
required working hours for mothers with children under age 6 from 20 to 40 hours a week.
If middle-income parents in stable, two-income families have difficulty
finding and paying for decent child care, which in 48 states costs more than public
college tuition, how much more difficult -- or near impossible -- is it for fragile, poor
families and single heads of households living in depressed neighborhoods without
industry, transportation, jobs or the skills and education to find and get child care for
their children.
Many states, through the National Governors Association -- a majority
of whom are Republicans -- have voiced concerns about the direction of the
Administration's welfare "reform" proposals.
The governors wanted and got ground-level control of welfare
when President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 which shred and replaced a 61-year old federal guarantee of aid
to poor children with a system of block grants to states. It imposed work requirements on
recipients and a five-year lifetime limit on benefits, giving states flexibility to design
and run programs suited to their particular populations.
For me, the jury is still out on the 1996 law's ultimate impact. Time
limits are just taking effect in most states. We are now in recession rather than in the
boom time in the last decade. Many children in families who have left welfare and are
working are still poor, and they are struggling like millions of other low and moderate
working families, to put bread on the table and ensure the safety of their children.
This does not seem to ruffle the Bush administration's
professed compassionate conservatism. President Bush's commitment to his
profligate tax cut -- which leaves no millionaire behind while leaving millions of
children behind without safe child care, health care, and in poverty -- is unwavering.
Indeed, he seeks to make its unjust handouts to the wealthy permanent.
On June 26, the Senate Finance Committee approved a welfare reform and
child care reauthorization bill (The Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids Act of
2002) by a vote of 13-8 which authorized only a $5.5 billion increase in mandatory child
care funds over the next five years. States will not even be required to match most of
that amount. As a result, only a piddling number of additional children, if any, will get
child care. What, then, is to happen to the millions of children left behind without
adequate child care? How are single mothers and others to work?
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a key leader in enacting the child
care block grants, claiming that nobody is a stronger supporter of child care
money than he, nevertheless concluded, "Like everything else around here, it's a
matter of making choices." Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, spoke knowledgeably about
child care and the numbers of children on waiting lists but concluded that "fiscal
realities dictate the $5.5 billion." Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.,
said that $5.5. billion is not enough and he would support additional funds on the Senate
floor. I hope so.
Sen. Hatch is right. It is a matter of making choices. We do not have a
money problem in America. We have a values and priorities problem. Citizens need to hold
our leaders accountable for making sure that more just and sensible choices for our
children and working families are made and that those who use the words "Leave No
Child Behind," especially our president, mean it.
________
c. 2002 Religion News Service
Close this window to return to the Poverty Update for August 2002