Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).
This is also named the "Welfare to Work Act." In it's basic form it is fairly benign and a good idea, however, the end result is not as benign as the law.
Those on welfare have achieved goals and moved OFF the welfare rolls, but, once they are on their own there have been severe outcomes. Those benefiting from this program move into a minimum wage environment. Not everyone, but, many have. They don't necessarily have medical benefits. There is no reassure with this program that their graduates will live the quality of life provided to them while within the program. These are the working poor in many instances.
While on this program children, young children, are taken care of through childcare benefits. Let's say the recipient takes the full five years to achieve an outcome that will provide a job and their children were very young, about one year old, when they came into the program. After five years the youngest are now six years old.
The six year old child attends school, may or may not have school lunches available to them, but, they will go home to a home without supervision. Their home may or may not be a what would be characterized as 'good neighborhoods.' The parent in these circumstances is probably working two jobs as the very least. So, the time the six year is on their own is substantial.
There are nightmare stories about these children. In one case, Mom was on the bus coming home when her young daughter was on her way home from school and killed. I don't have to speak to the nightmare in the inner city neighborhoods where parents are not available to their children of any age.
Programs such as Welfare to Work is suppose to lift citizens up and bring them a life worth living. That is called quality of life. The incentive to move from poverty to the Middle Class should be very clear. However, in the 21st Century USA, there is more incentive to hang on to programs and benefits because there is no value that exceeds that in the country for some people.
Where the Republican programs fail is to limit the time a recipient has to achieve a job and move off welfare. The time limit is creating danger and removing incentive for THE SOCIETY to see the shortfall and address it in ways of raising the minimum wage. The goals of the program have a lot of merit. The USA should not seek to have their citizens on poverty benefits so much as moving into a Middle Class where incomes sustain quality of life including health insurance. It is after all the Middle Class that holds the earliest promise of the American Dream.
There is a lot of incentive for people to maintain their Middle Class status when they finally tap into a quality of life they have only dreamed about. The Middle Class and not the lower Middle Class has this potential. It is the Middle Class and the Upper Middle Class that begin to look to the future to plan for retirement and seek investments to improve their outcomes with their retirements.
When one evaluates the Republican economic platform to realize their policies are for the wealthy and to continue to impoverish those without wealth their Welfare to Work program is one that victimizes and does not elevate. It is not the program that is the problem it is what the poor have to look forward to when they achieve job status and move off welfare. The problem of victimization takes it's youngest recipients and removes the safety net they have become used to while their parent was within the program.
It is my opinion there should be no limit to the program until the children are old enough to supervise themselves at home if indeed they are young during the program. That is the only option that is realistic to provide incentive to move the Republicans to stop their victimization and actually care about the poor when they do move into a Middle Class status.
The other option is to realize an economy where a program participant can actually move off welfare with sufficient income. Income sufficient to pay for childcare while working ONE job. To pay the rent, food without food stamps and health care as well as birthday gifts and parties and all those wonderful times a family has to be together and celebrate each other. Currently, the impoverished in the USA is extreme. It was created by four decades of Republican priorities. So, they have no right to speak to poverty when it is not removed completely and children suffer adverse outcomes only to become unwed mothers that return to the program at their earliest opportunity.
Absent parents should never be the best outcome of any program within the USA.
This is also named the "Welfare to Work Act." In it's basic form it is fairly benign and a good idea, however, the end result is not as benign as the law.
Those on welfare have achieved goals and moved OFF the welfare rolls, but, once they are on their own there have been severe outcomes. Those benefiting from this program move into a minimum wage environment. Not everyone, but, many have. They don't necessarily have medical benefits. There is no reassure with this program that their graduates will live the quality of life provided to them while within the program. These are the working poor in many instances.
While on this program children, young children, are taken care of through childcare benefits. Let's say the recipient takes the full five years to achieve an outcome that will provide a job and their children were very young, about one year old, when they came into the program. After five years the youngest are now six years old.
The six year old child attends school, may or may not have school lunches available to them, but, they will go home to a home without supervision. Their home may or may not be a what would be characterized as 'good neighborhoods.' The parent in these circumstances is probably working two jobs as the very least. So, the time the six year is on their own is substantial.
There are nightmare stories about these children. In one case, Mom was on the bus coming home when her young daughter was on her way home from school and killed. I don't have to speak to the nightmare in the inner city neighborhoods where parents are not available to their children of any age.
Programs such as Welfare to Work is suppose to lift citizens up and bring them a life worth living. That is called quality of life. The incentive to move from poverty to the Middle Class should be very clear. However, in the 21st Century USA, there is more incentive to hang on to programs and benefits because there is no value that exceeds that in the country for some people.
Where the Republican programs fail is to limit the time a recipient has to achieve a job and move off welfare. The time limit is creating danger and removing incentive for THE SOCIETY to see the shortfall and address it in ways of raising the minimum wage. The goals of the program have a lot of merit. The USA should not seek to have their citizens on poverty benefits so much as moving into a Middle Class where incomes sustain quality of life including health insurance. It is after all the Middle Class that holds the earliest promise of the American Dream.
There is a lot of incentive for people to maintain their Middle Class status when they finally tap into a quality of life they have only dreamed about. The Middle Class and not the lower Middle Class has this potential. It is the Middle Class and the Upper Middle Class that begin to look to the future to plan for retirement and seek investments to improve their outcomes with their retirements.
When one evaluates the Republican economic platform to realize their policies are for the wealthy and to continue to impoverish those without wealth their Welfare to Work program is one that victimizes and does not elevate. It is not the program that is the problem it is what the poor have to look forward to when they achieve job status and move off welfare. The problem of victimization takes it's youngest recipients and removes the safety net they have become used to while their parent was within the program.
It is my opinion there should be no limit to the program until the children are old enough to supervise themselves at home if indeed they are young during the program. That is the only option that is realistic to provide incentive to move the Republicans to stop their victimization and actually care about the poor when they do move into a Middle Class status.
The other option is to realize an economy where a program participant can actually move off welfare with sufficient income. Income sufficient to pay for childcare while working ONE job. To pay the rent, food without food stamps and health care as well as birthday gifts and parties and all those wonderful times a family has to be together and celebrate each other. Currently, the impoverished in the USA is extreme. It was created by four decades of Republican priorities. So, they have no right to speak to poverty when it is not removed completely and children suffer adverse outcomes only to become unwed mothers that return to the program at their earliest opportunity.
Absent parents should never be the best outcome of any program within the USA.
