How the other half lives

What does Ohio Congresswoman Deborah Pryce have against poor families?\nShe says her bill, the White House-backed Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4), will help the poor ... It won't.\nWelfare policies have gotten tougher since 1996, when President Clinton and the Republican Congress collaborated on a package of reforms to "end welfare as we know it," as Clinton said.\nThey succeeded at that.\nIn the past, welfare was an entitlement. If you were poor, you got money. Today, benefits end after a short period -- in Indiana's case, only two years out of an adult's life.\nState welfare programs get their money from both state and federal revenues. Federal contributions have stayed the same for the past several years without even an adjustment for inflation.\nIn the 1990s, this was fine. The states had enough money to pay for welfare.\nBut with the economy's downturn, states have raised taxes, cut spending or done a little of both to stay out of the red.\nIt's easy to cut welfare programs. Welfare recipients have no lobbyists. Many don't even vote. And they don't give to campaigns.\nHow bad is the situation? Look at Indiana. The budget for the state's main job training program for those on welfare has been severely reduced, benefits for some families have been cut by nearly two-thirds and it's now easier for welfare families to lose all of their benefits.\nHalf of you are probably asking why you should care. Welfare recipients are all lazy anyhow; we ought to cut their benefits. Make 'em get a job. That'll teach 'em.\nBut as Maureen Pirog, SPEA professor and co-director of the IU Institute for Family and Social Responsibility, said, the perception that welfare recipients are "free-riding on the public's expense, driving in Cadillacs, ripping off the public" is wrong.\n"The public and the media simply forget that two-thirds of these recipients are children," she said.\nThe situation for those on welfare is bad already, thanks to the economy's slow growth rate and the cutbacks in the state's programs. If Deborah Pryce has her way, the situation will get worse.\nShawn Fremstad, an analyst at the Washington, D.C.,-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explained that the Pryce bill would require those on welfare to work more hours.\nAt the same time, though, Pryce's proposal has only modest increases for childcare subsidies. Those subsidies are essential for single mothers (the majority of adults receiving welfare).\nWithout affordable childcare, Pirog said, "Mom can't work in many cases. She loses days of work, and many times is dismissed from employment because she's not reliable. \n"You risk either losing your job or losing your children to the child welfare system due to neglect. Poor parents are in a rather difficult position when they don't have any place to put their children," she said.\nFremstad also pointed out that H.R. 4 would aggravate the states' fiscal crises. The Pryce bill includes between $6 to 8 billion in unfunded mandates, programs that states would be ordered to fund out of their budgets without federal assistance, he said.\nThat means states will have to cut existing programs even more.\n"The prospects for poor women, and in particular for poor children, are not particularly good," Pirog said. "And they look like they will probably get worse, because there's just fewer dollars to go around."\nPryce's bill will force more welfare recipients to go to work while making it harder for them to find childcare and forcing severe cuts in their benefits. It will force single parents on welfare to choose between their job and their children.\nThis is a "Family Promotion Act?"\nJudging by her Web page, Deborah Pryce is a nice woman. \nSo I ask again: What does she have against the poor?