Why The Welfare Reform Bill Is Falling Apart

Conservative criticism of the GOP-led effort is scaring away Democrats, setting up partisan fight over the federal safety net.

House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan made welfare reform a priority this Congress.
Bloomberg AFP/Getty
Sept. 20, 2015, 8 p.m.

In mid-Ju­ly, hopes in the Paul Ry­an-led House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee were high about the pro­spects for the biggest bi­par­tis­an wel­fare-re­form ef­fort in 20 years. Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats were en­gaged in the ef­fort and ex­press­ing op­tim­ism both pub­licly and privately.

Two months later, things are in danger of fall­ing apart.

Prom­in­ent out­side con­ser­vat­ives at groups in­clud­ing the Her­it­age Found­a­tion and Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute have made clear they would op­pose some of the ma­jor as­pects of the draft bill in­tro­duced this sum­mer that would over­haul the Tem­por­ary As­sist­ance for Needy Fam­il­ies pro­gram. Demo­crats are in turn sig­nal­ing a will­ing­ness to walk away if the le­gis­la­tion moves too far to the right.

Robert Rect­or, a seni­or re­search fel­low at the Her­it­age Found­a­tion and one of the main au­thors of the 1996 wel­fare-re­form bill that cre­ated TANF, said in an in­ter­view that he “would not sup­port” the draft’s pro­posed changes to the pro­gram’s work-par­ti­cip­a­tion rate—namely, ex­pand­ing how much some kinds of edu­ca­tion and oth­er job train­ing count to­ward the work re­quire­ment that states and re­cip­i­ents must meet.

Rect­or and oth­ers also op­pose the draft bill’s elim­in­a­tion of the case­load-re­duc­tion cred­it, which helps states meet TANF’s work re­quire­ments if they lower the num­ber of people on their wel­fare rolls. Con­ser­vat­ives cred­it the policy with de­creas­ing de­pend­ence on wel­fare.

Des­pite those con­cerns with the ini­tial draft, however, Rect­or ex­pressed con­fid­ence that the fi­nal product would be im­proved from his point of view.

“I’m pretty con­fid­ent they’re go­ing to pro­duce a good bill,” he said. “Wel­fare re­form in the 1990’s was prob­ably the para­mount achieve­ment of the Re­pub­lic­an Con­gress, and I ex­pect them to go for­ward with the main prin­ciples of that re­form.”

In all, it is a del­ic­ate bal­an­cing act for Re­pub­lic­ans. They can and may push on without the Demo­crats. But if the talks fall through and the is­sue des­cends in­to par­tis­an grid­lock that can’t over­come a Demo­crat­ic fili­buster in the Sen­ate or Pres­id­ent Obama’s veto pen, it will be an ig­noble end to nearly a year of work. Ry­an had signaled his in­terest in pur­su­ing wel­fare re­form this Con­gress last Decem­ber, be­fore he took the Ways and Means gavel. The com­mit­tee held a hear­ing in April, and then the dis­cus­sion draft de­b­uted in mid-Ju­ly. The pub­lic and private com­ments, from lib­er­als and con­ser­vat­ives, star­ted to stream in after that, while ne­go­ti­ations on Cap­it­ol Hill con­tin­ued.

“We’re try­ing to work through this in a bi­par­tis­an way,” Rep. Charles Bous­tany, chair­man of the Ways and Means Hu­man Re­sources Sub­com­mit­tee, which over­sees TANF, said in an in­ter­view. “Keep in mind this is a very flu­id pro­cess. Los­ing Demo­crat­ic sup­port is real; it’s a pos­sib­il­ity.”

“But that’s the whole point of a dis­cus­sion draft,” he con­tin­ued. “We start from po­s­i­tions and we try to flesh out where we end up without vi­ol­at­ing some of the core prin­ciples we laid out that we’re try­ing to ad­here to.”

Demo­crats say that while they wer­en’t en­am­ored with the ini­tial draft—in par­tic­u­lar, they want more fund­ing for the pro­gram and for states to be re­quired to spend more money on dir­ect be­ne­fits—there were parts that they liked. But Rep. Lloyd Dog­gett, the rank­ing mem­ber of Bous­tany’s pan­el, in­dic­ated in an in­ter­view that more re­cent talks have seen the draft bill mov­ing fur­ther from something they could sup­port.

“The dis­cus­sion that my staff had with the ma­jor­ity com­mit­tee staff back in Au­gust sug­ges­ted that, if any­thing, they were re­treat­ing a bit from that draft,” Dog­gett said. “Hav­ing come un­der cri­ti­cism for seek­ing any bi­par­tis­an ap­proach, in­stead of try­ing to work to­ward that bi­par­tis­an ap­proach, there seemed to be a re­treat…. Ba­sic­ally, the staff seem to be say­ing, ‘This is about the best we can do.’”

“I want to ex­press a will­ing­ness to par­ti­cip­ate,” he ad­ded later. “But I’m not sure there is suf­fi­cient flex­ib­il­ity on the ma­jor­ity side, giv­en the con­di­tions with­in their caucus, to get us to a pro­gram that fo­cuses on work and not just more wel­fare.”

The sub­com­mit­tee has re­ceived “volumes” of feed­back, among which has been con­ser­vat­ives stat­ing their con­cerns about the work re­quire­ments, Bous­tany said. The pri­or­ity for Re­pub­lic­ans, he said, is to make TANF “a plat­form to get people off of wel­fare, off of as­sist­ance and in­to valu­able sub­stant­ive work op­por­tun­it­ies, that lead to op­por­tun­ity and mov­ing up the lad­der, rather than just stag­na­tion.”

“That’s one of the things we’ve been look­ing at. That feed­back has been very help­ful to us,” the Louisi­ana Re­pub­lic­an said. “We want to stick to a work-first pro­gram, but we also want to make sure that what’s be­ing done in com­bin­a­tion with the work and edu­ca­tion re­quire­ment is sub­stant­ive and ac­tu­ally leads to people spring-board­ing off of the pro­gram without re­cidiv­ism. That’s the key, and that’s what we’re try­ing to drill down to.”

The cri­ti­cism of the dis­cus­sion draft has come from some of the most prom­in­ent names in con­ser­vat­ism, at or­gan­iz­a­tions like AEI, the Cato In­sti­tute, and Her­it­age.

“I think that giv­ing in on the core work re­quire­ment is a step in the wrong dir­ec­tion,” said Robert Doar, a former com­mis­sion­er of the New York City Hu­man Re­sources Ad­min­is­tra­tion and now a fel­low at AEI. “The core re­quire­ment is a fun­da­ment­al key to the im­port­ance of TANF.… It made the pro­gram much stronger in help­ing people reach their full po­ten­tial.”

Bous­tany em­phas­ized that ne­go­ti­ations with Demo­crats were on­go­ing and noth­ing had been fi­nal­ized yet. Dog­gett also re­it­er­ated his will­ing­ness to keep work­ing to­ward something that both sides could sup­port. The short-term gov­ern­ment-spend­ing bill that Con­gress will have to pass by the end of the month is ex­pec­ted to ex­tend the pro­gram as-is in­to Decem­ber, Dog­gett said, which would give law­makers and staff more time to try to bridge these gaps.

Dog­gett per­son­ally handed Bous­tany a cri­tique of the draft be­fore they both left for the Au­gust re­cess, Bous­tany said. Bous­tany re­viewed it on his plane ride home to Louisi­ana and talked it over with his staff over the next couple weeks, while keep­ing Ry­an in the loop, be­fore giv­ing a coun­ter­pro­pos­al to Dog­gett and the Demo­crats in mid-Au­gust. The minor­ity has not yet form­ally re­spon­ded a month later, Bous­tany said.

“My feel­ing is that the changes that I ad­vanced to get us to a point where we could see bi­par­tis­an spon­sors and sup­port for this were ba­sic­ally not giv­en ser­i­ous con­sid­er­a­tion,” Dog­gett said.

That is the para­dox driv­ing the pess­im­ism around wel­fare re­form. Con­ser­vat­ives have made their dis­pleas­ure known, but if the bill moves to the right, Re­pub­lic­ans risk los­ing the bi­par­tis­an sup­port they’ll need to pass a bill in the Sen­ate and earn Obama’s sig­na­ture. Yet if the policies op­posed by con­ser­vat­ives re­main in the bill, it might be the Right that ral­lies against it, which also would also put its fu­ture in doubt.

“Re­pub­lic­ans who, like us, are in­ter­ested and in­formed about TANF, would have a hard time with the dis­cus­sion draft as it stands, and I think adding things that the Demo­crats want would make it dif­fi­cult to pass,” said Jason Turn­er, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Sec­ret­ar­ies’ In­nov­a­tion Group, which rep­res­ents con­ser­vat­ive state of­fi­cials in the hu­man ser­vice and work­force fields.

Giv­en these re­cent de­vel­op­ments, mul­tiple sources—con­ser­vat­ive and lib­er­al—pre­dicted that the pro­spects for the long-term reau­thor­iz­a­tion and over­haul of TANF that was ori­gin­ally en­vi­sioned just a few months ago are dim­ming.

“If I were forced to say ex­actly what might hap­pen, I would bet noth­ing,” one source said. Or, as an­oth­er put it: “There was some hope there, but I have to say, more re­cently, that hope is fad­ing.”

Even Bous­tany, though he said, “You have to re­main op­tim­ist­ic if you’re go­ing to get any­thing done,” ac­know­ledged there were no guar­an­tees.

“At the end of the day, we could fail,” he said. “We will not fail for want of try­ing.”

What We're Following See More »
Criminal Justice Reform Bill Clears Senate
1 hours ago

"The Senate passed a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill on Tuesday night, handing a significant victory to President Trump and senators who lobbied to advance the legislation before the end of the year. Senators voted 87-12 on the legislation, which merges a House-passed prison reform bill aimed at reducing recidivism with a handful of changes to sentencing laws and mandatory minimum prison sentences." The House aims to vote on the measure when it reconvenes later this week.

Judge Delays Flynn Sentencing
6 hours ago

Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan "agreed Tuesday to postpone Michael Flynn’s sentencing after a hearing to decide the punishment for President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser went awry." Sullivan gave Flynn a chance to reconsider his decision to plead guilty, adding that he could not "guarantee a sentence without prison time, even after the special counsel’s office recommended that Flynn not be incarcerated. After a brief recess, Sullivan and prosecutors agreed to delay sentencing so that Flynn could "eke out the last modicum of cooperation."

Ducey To Appoint Martha McSally To Senate
10 hours ago
Is White House Caving on Government Shutdown?
10 hours ago

"White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders seemed to endorse a potential spending deal that would include all of the remaining appropriations, including a Senate Homeland Homeland Security bill with $1.6 billion in wall-related funding. But as usual, there was a catch—President Donald Trump might insist on flexibility to use other funds already identified to get closer to his desired $5 billion."

VOTE IS 82-12
Senate Advances Criminal Justice Reform
10 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.