Debating the common good

In a time of economic downturn, when state and federal government budgets get tight, the first cuts in spending often come in social welfare programs, which amount to only about 4 percent of federal spending. \nEven in more prosperous economic times, however, programs like food stamps, housing assistance and especially cash payments provided by the government to low-income families through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, come under attack from conservative groups, according to Michael B. Katz.\nKatz's new book, "The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American Welfare State," argues that more and more poor Americans are being left behind by a system unable to help them, even temporarily, during such tough financial times. \nHe writes that much of American welfare reform, enacted in the aftermath of the Republican's congressional victories in 1994 as part of the "Contract With America," is propelling society toward "a future of increased inequality and decreased security as individuals compete for success in an open market with ever fewer protections against misfortune, power, and greed." The full rights of citizenship, Katz says, are transformed from a right of birth to one of privilege for those who are fully employed.\nWith passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996, Congress and President Bill Clinton "together had ended the nation's 61-year-old federal guarantee of cash assistance," Katz writes, "and the public supported them." The bill shifted focus from lifting families from poverty to making sure parents were employed -- in any job they could find, regardless of whether it included health care benefits, time off for family emergencies, or even a livable wage to support a family. Welfare was now temporary, with time limits for various programs from two to five years.\n"The new law oriented public assistance around the transition to work," Katz writes. And, measured solely in terms of the number of former welfare recipients who moved into at least some sort of job, the reforms were a success -- even though moving recipients into jobs was "expensive and difficult." But measured in terms of actually reducing poverty among former recipients and improving their economic situation, another picture emerges.\n"Finding a job did not end the problems of many former welfare recipients. Their wages were usually low and job loss frequent," Katz writes. "As a result, many of those who left welfare rolls remained in poverty."\nOne factor that can be a measurement of whether the new system is better for society is the plight of the children in these families. Before 1996, most mothers remained at home with their children and were able to care for and spend time with them daily; now those same mothers are at work for the better part of the day. That means putting children in expensive day-care centers or, if possible, with friends or family. Welfare reform does not regard housework and childcare as "work." Work, to welfare reformers, is only that which is done for monetary gain. \nClearly, much more research continues to emerge as the effects of welfare reform are debated. Public policy is ever-changing. Katz's book shows the reader just what effect it has on poor families and what might be done to alleviate some of the harshest effects. \n"The Price of Citizenship" is a well-researched and reasoned book on the plight of America's poor families in the wake of welfare reform. So well-researched, in fact, that pages 361 to 450 are devoted to notes in small font. \nKatz's book is a needed addition to the debate on the effectiveness of the 1996 reform law. It brings a decidedly liberal perspective to the discussion. Much as Charles Murray's 1984 book "Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980" was the defining work on social programs for conservative reformers in the last two decades, perhaps Katz's book will serve the same purpose for liberals who feel more must be done to help the struggling poor and unemployed.