Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Federalism Issues Again

Federalism has been an issue since our nation's founding. It has been reinvented many times over the past 200 years. We are now hearing an increasingly louder debate about the federal government requirements on states in order to qualify for federal "stimulus funds". Some see the requirements creating an inbalance in "federalism" in the relationship between the federal and state governments. This story is an example of what is happening out in the states:

The Nation
States Ignoring Stimulus Welfare Fund

A $5 billion emergency fund for needy families can be used to immediately create jobs for the unemployed, pay rent for families facing eviction, even repair someone’s car so they can get to work. But many states aren’t taking advantage of the windfall because state officials say they can’t afford the requirement that they put up 20 percent of the costs. And of the states that have applied for funds, there have been accusations of abuse of funds.

"Hundreds line up outside a Chase Bank in Jackson Heights, Queens, N.Y., to take advantage of the free funds aimed at helping underprivileged children. Every child between 3 and 17 was eligible for $200. (John Taggart/New York Daily News)
Word of the money spread quickly.
New York state had put hundreds of dollars in federal stimulus money into food stamp accounts, and if it wasn’t withdrawn by 4 p.m., 9 p.m., midnight—depending on the version of the rumor—it would disappear. So on a sultry August day, lines stretched at ATMs all over the state, a literal run on the bank.
The surprise cash—which was real, even though the deadlines weren’t—came from a little-known stimulus fund that economists say would directly help people hurt by the recession and be extremely effective at stimulating the economy.
The $5 billion emergency fund for needy families [2] can be used to immediately create jobs for the unemployed, pay rent for families facing eviction, even repair someone’s car so they can get to work.
But many states aren’t taking advantage of the windfall because state officials say they can’t afford the requirement that they put up 20 percent of the costs. Six months into the stimulus, only 27 states have applied for the money.
In New York, Gov. David Paterson came up with a creative solution [3] that has been praised by economists and advocates for the poor. Unable to make the 20 percent match on its own, the state teamed up with philanthropist George Soros [4], whose Open Society Institute [5] contributed $35 million so the state could access $140 million in stimulus money.
The money went straight to low-income families, who received $200 per child for back-to-school supplies and clothes. About 800,000 children were eligible.
But the chaos and allegations of abuse that followed illustrates how, in the heated debate over the stimulus, even the most lauded program can turn into the most lampooned overnight.
Critics say the state bungled it when it put no restrictions on how the money could be used. It also deposited it into the debit accounts of food stamp and welfare recipients without telling them it was there or what it was for until days later.
Rumors percolated that the money had to be taken out and spent right away. And store clerks began complaining that people were using the money for beer, lottery tickets, iPods and flat-screen TVs.
“They said, ‘Well, we have to get our money out of the ATM to buy school supplies,’” said Diane Goly, who owns a Sunoco gas station in Syracuse. “But as we were watching, people were taking the money to buy beer and cigarettes.”
Noah Lebowitz, spokesman for Monroe County in Rochester, said social-services investigators found that some people in its drug treatment programs received large amounts of cash.
“They have a very difficult time not spending it on drugs,” he said. “We were seeing people with drug abuse problems getting $1,000 in their bank account.”
Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks [6] asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the possible abuse of taxpayer dollars. Republican politicians railed against the lack of accountability and called it a rollback of welfare reform [7] efforts of the mid-1990s. But the program’s defenders said isolated cases have been overblown to stoke anger and play into the stereotype of welfare Cadillacs.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [8] program was created in 1997 to overhaul welfare and push recipients to find work rather than “living off the system.” As a result, welfare rolls dropped from 12 million in 1996 [9] to less than 4 million in 2008 [10], even though there had been little change in the national poverty and jobless rates before the current recession.
When the economic stimulus bill was passed in February, it created a new $5 billion emergency fund under TANF to help states whose welfare caseloads have grown during the recession. But it also encouraged the expansion of rarely-used efforts that any state can take advantage of—such as one-time cash payments to low-income families and temporary government-paid jobs programs similar to the Works Progress Administration of the Great Depression.
In Perry County, Tenn., where roughly one of every four workers had been unemployed since January, the state used $5 million to create jobs for those laid off from an auto parts plant [11]—clearing brush for the state highway department, painting murals, even baking turnovers at a pie factory. The county’s jobless rate dropped from a high of 27 percent in January to 19 percent in July.
Los Angeles County used $160 million to put together a jobs program intent on employing 10,000 people. The stimulus is picking up 100 percent of the workers’ salaries, because the state argued that additional costs to administer the program and supervise workers counts as the 20 percent.
Ken Wolfe, a spokesman for the U.S. Health and Human Services Department [12], said the agency expects more states to apply for the money. But Jack Tweedie, who’s been studying the TANF program for the National Conference of State Legislatures [13], said most states will take only enough to ensure that they won’t have to turn away new families who qualify for welfare. As much as $1 billion could be left on the table when the program ends in September 2010, he said.
“Virtually all the states are in really tough fiscal positions—they’ve been cutting, not expanding,” said Tweedie, director of the children and families program for the National Conference. “It’s hard to get policymakers to focus on new things when primarily what they have to do is cut things.”
Louisiana doesn’t plan to use any of the funds, despite the fact that one in five residents lives in poverty—the second highest in the nation. Sammy Guillory, deputy assistant secretary of Louisiana’s Office of Family Support [14], said even with the stimulus picking up 80 percent, the state can’t afford it.
“We’re in an almost crisis level budget situation in Louisiana,” he said. “We’re facing budget cuts and staff reductions every day. So even to start a program is not an option right now.”
Tweedie and other public policy experts have been traveling around the country educating states on the program’s flexibility. The 20 percent portion doesn’t have to come from state budgets, he said. It can be paid by cities, counties, private donors or nonprofits like homeless shelters or food banks.
“If they want to do back-to-school payments, go talk to Wal-Mart or Target and have them put up the 20 percent,” Tweedie said.
Economist Lawrence Mishel said giving money to low-income people is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy, because they’re more likely to spend it than average consumers.
“Whether you call it back-to-school money or just go-out-and-spend-it money, I don’t think it really matters much,” said Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute [15]. “Why would somebody get upset about money going to people on TANF? As opposed to rich people buying flat-screen TVs” with tax cuts?
Like New York, Texas is using stimulus money to help poor families buy back-to-school supplies [16], albeit on a much smaller scale, just $6 million for the entire program. Welfare recipients got just $105 per child and they could use the money only at specific stores, not at ATMs.
Texas also announced its program weeks in advance, avoiding the confusion New Yorkers experienced when the money came their way.
Niurka Ventura, a mother of five in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan, said she heard about the money from a friend, who told her she had to withdraw the money by midnight. She noticed a crowd waiting at the ATM next to her apartment and sent her daughter to stand in line, which she said took three hours.
Ventura said she spent the money on phone and electricity bills, took her kids to the zoo and treated them to pizza. She said she didn’t get the letter telling her that the money was for school supplies until a week later.
Kristin Proud, the state’s deputy director for operations, said there was no other way to get the money out in time for back-to-school sales.
The state couldn’t limit it to a certain number of stores, because rural residents might be an hour’s drive from a major chain. It would have taken years to create a card system that could limit purchases to a list of items, as food-stamp cards are designed to do, she said.
“It would be very difficult to determine what kind of clothing, for example, is a back-to-school item,” Proud said. “Like is a woman’s size 12—is that OK for a purchase for back-to-school for children? Some would argue no. I would argue that I have friends who have large children who are 15 and wear clothing bigger than I do.”
Proud said the federal government signed off on New York’s plans. When asked about allegations that the money was being misspent, Wolfe, the Health and Human Services spokesman, referred ProPublica to remarks that an agency official made when the New York program was announced, praising the idea. Wolfe did not respond to the criticisms of how the program was implemented.
Don White, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services inspector general, said his office is aware of the New York allegations but wouldn’t confirm or deny whether investigators were looking into them.
Mimi Corcoran, who works with George Soros’ foundation, said Soros was happy with the outcome. He was inspired to donate the money by his own experience after World War II, she said, when Quakers gave him school money with no strings attached.
“We respect and honor that even if individuals are poor, they will spend the money appropriately for their children,” she said
Outside the Washington Heights food stamps office two weeks ago, Tokina Julius, a single mother, said she didn’t know how she would have afforded new clothes for her 7-year old daughter Jacqueline without the money. She said she bought four pairs of jeans and three shirts at Old Navy, as well as jumpers, stockings and a pair of Hush Puppies sneakers. She said she has $50 left, which she said she’s saving for notebooks.
“I was happy it came,” Julius said. “It really helped me out in a big way.”"

By the Nation Magazine.

13 comments:

  1. I found this article to be fascinating. You hear about the abuse of the welfare system all the time but this was the first time I have heard about states giving money to low income families for back to school supplies.

    I think that this particular program is a great idea if it could have been run more smoothly. The way Texas implemented it seems to be worlds better than the fiasco that occured in New York even though both states had obvious flaws in there execution. However, I do agree that any purchases at all, even those of beer and cigarettes, would help to boost the economy.

    I particularly liked the part in this article where it was proposed to run the program like that of the one for food stamps. By limiting stores the money could be spent at you would at least have some regulation of what is being bought, aka clothing, even if it is not entirely for the students back to school needs. I think that would at least be a step in the right direction toward achieving the initial goal of the program.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do agree that this program is a great idea because our country depends on the education of our children. To effectively rebuild our country we have to work from the bottom up and what better place to start then the foundation of our society, education. What I do not agree with is the money being used to buy beer and cigarettes. Yes, it may help our economy but don't you think our children deserve a little better than that. Many students are being taught in old battered schools which lack the supplies to effectively educate. This may have provided some assistance but like many governmental programs, they are being taken advantage of because the program was half assed in the first place in terms of limiting the materials avaliable for purchase with the funds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This article gave me a new insight about our welfare reform system. Providing money for back to school clothes and supplies is a fantastic idea. However, Texas did organize their program is a much better way than New York did. If implemented within our state or across the U.S. they should change it to be like the food stamp system. I agree with anbernar, spending the money on beer and cigarettes does not respect how the money was to be sent and does not better anything. The money was intended to aide children not provide their parents with a good time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i think this program is a great idea it just needs to work out the kinks. i think education is key because it is the path to a brighter future. i think if this program continues, it will be right where it needs to be in a few years, everyone just needs to give it a chance!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think this could have been handled better by the states. There should have been more regulation on the stimulus. For example why not print vouchers that they could use at certain stores. This is similar to what Texas did, but there could have been ways to not just have the voucher be a 'chain store' only thing. I think this could have just been better planned. If there wasnt enought time to perfect a 'back to school' voucher, then maybe do something for the holiday season. That way you have enough time to iron out the kinks so to speak. Or if it would take longer, then take longer. C'mon people we are smarter than this! Finally I just have to say that I feel so bad for those poor kids who watched their parents drink and smoke away their back to school money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The welfare system all over our country needs to be tweaked so that it works with fewer kinks and so that it costs the actual taxpayers less. However, I do think that this program is a great way to help the underprivileged be able to get their children school supplies and so that their mental state isn't that of going into school already feeling inferior to others. I also tend to believe that it would work better if it were given in Block Grants to the states with little strings attached so that the states could create a program good for their state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Honestly, this article depressed me because, to a large extent, it reaffirmed my negative preconceived notions about welfare in general, and the stimulus in particular. I mean, I will readily admit that the ideal of helping ones fellow human is commendable, but I have to ask at what cost?

    If we spend 1 billion dollars on welfare, how much of it will be spent "effectively"? Even if you assume that a vast majority of it IS spent on pre-outlined goals (which, johnny raincloud that I am, I don't), you must ask yourself are those goals (like painting murals) really a wise use of money? What about the wasted money? Was it worth having 400 million dollars wasted on cigarettes and pizza in order to spent 600 million on cleaning highways and painting murals? Especially when none of the money exists in the first place?

    Call me a hater, but I don't think its worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think Texas did the right thing. Texas looked into the program and set up proper rules, where New York failed. It is common sense that people abuse the welfare system everyday. It is a good idea if it actually helps the people who need it. The problem is people who need it do not always spend it on the right thing. A drug rehab person receiving money with no restrictions is a no brainier. I give props to the people who actually spend it on their kids.
    However this system needs regulations and needs to be more informational. If New York would of had proper information out in time then maybe it would of been spent on for back-to-school. If they would not of released the money for another week, kids would of still went to school. I think it would of been better late than never. Instead it went to most of the wrong things. The United States government needs to set BETTER rules and regulations on these programs. We CANNOT just keep printing money for needy people. Money might be made out of paper, which comes from trees, but it does not grow on trees.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are no easy solutions. We can't just throw money at a problem and expect the problem to disappear. That being said, I think it is better to try something regardless of how beneficial it ends up being (or not being) than to not do anything. People misspend money all the time; it's not just the people in drug rehab. I would have been shocked if all the parents spent the money on their children's back-to-school necessities. I am becoming more and more aware of how many parents have children that are more mature than the parent could ever hope to be. It is human nature to be selfish and self-absorbed. Overall I think it was worth a shot, but I would rather us not throw money at the problem and rather try to find some lasting, preventive measures to fix the problem. It's a shame that Louisiana, with the second highest poverty level, couldn't take part in the stimulus money. They sure could have used it, even if it was just for cigarettes and TVs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This article was very interesting. The program sounded like a great idea, until people started using it inappropriately. It would help if they could find a way to limit the money to only be used for certain things. Having the money be on a credit card type thing would probably be too costly and a logistical nightmare but it would stop people from wasting the money. Just handing money to people won't solve the problem, but it seems like an easy immediate fix.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There seems to be a general agreement that Texas had the right idea. They were on the right track. They gave less money, limited the places the money could be used, and announced the money weeks in advance. The welfare system in this country does need to be reworked a bit, but using Texas as an example could be a good thing in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This was an interesting article that provided a lot of insight about how states can help out one of the most important building blocks of our society. The education of young people is in need of solutions and what a great way to implement funds for needy families to provide back to school supplies for their children. New York didn't have the best way to do it, seeing as a lot of the money was spent just as every day money, not what it was intended for. Texas did a great job in establishing some grounds of how they could make this a very useful way to make it's use as it was intended to be used.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I share a similar sentiment to that of minnieme. I have for a long time been skeptical of government run welfare. Firstly, I've witnessed the abuse of government welfare, similar to the kinds discussed in this article, time and again. These experiences have made it hard for me to support such an ineffective/wasteful (although well intentioned) program. However, this is not entirely for the recipients and abusers of government aide to blame. As it has been pointed out by many others on this blog, the government has not yet proved itself capable of putting out a competent welfare program.

    Perhaps it would be best to let faith based and other non-profit organizations take over the role of government welfare. I believe this would be more effective, because such organizations are community based and people are inherintly more accountable to one another in such a setting. I think we would see a sharp decline in abuse of aide, if recipients knew the faces of the voluntary money they recieving from. There is also strong incentive for businesses to support these organizations with donations because they are tax deductible. Also, by removing welfare programs from the governments responsibility we would free up a lot of money and time that we could put into other preventative resources such as education and security.

    ReplyDelete