In the Arena: Welfare Reform that Works

For the past three years, the Massachusetts legislature has voted repeatedly to curb allegedly rampant “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the state’s welfare program.  Our focus was prompted largely by grandstanding politicians, misguided media headlines, and injudicious audit reports — all during a time when hard-working families throughout the commonwealth were struggling to weather the worst economic period since the Great Depression.   Over time I became increasingly frustrated by the allegations, anecdotes, and repeated demonization of the most vulnerable in our society.  I launched an effort to set the record straight.  The effort bore fruit last month.  Here’s what happened.

It’s easy for a legislator to make a point by relating the story of a man in a supermarket checkout line using an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card — the modern day equivalent of food stamps — to buy steak.  Or to buy liquor.  Or to get a tattoo. That’s how certain members of the legislature have been framing debates on the floor of the House to allege that thousands of welfare beneficiaries were scamming the system.  My colleagues used anecdotes to make a policy point, and in the process make massive changes to the welfare system.  They wanted to reduce the types of children, elderly, and disabled people eligible for public assistance.  They wanted to impose new fines on the poor receiving benefits.  They wanted wasteful initiatives that would cost taxpayers millions with no clear improvement in the program.

Last year (year two of this misguided effort) I offered an alternative perspective based on facts and shared it with some of my colleagues.  I disproved the allegations that fraud was rampant.  I demonstrated that grandstanding opponents of the program didn’t understand the difference between federal programs (SNAP aka Food Stamps) and state programs (transitional assistance) and that, consequently, their policy prescriptions were misguided.  I found proof that 99% of the spending on the program and purchases being made were just fine, perfectly appropriate.  Perhaps most importantly, I posited that we shouldn’t focus on shrinking the program, but instead investing more in education, training, and skills development so that the impoverished citizens receiving welfare benefits could move off of the program and into stable jobs with good wages and decent benefits.  That, ultimately, would be the best way to save taxpayer dollars.

But most of my colleagues didn’t want to hear those arguments during last year’s debate.  The headlines in the media and the debate on the floor had framed the issue around fraud.  We needed to respond, they said.  And I didn’t push the issue so hard that I alienated colleagues.  I knew the issue would come up again.  There would be another opportunity to make my points.

So this year, when the opponents once again made efforts to eviscerate the welfare program, I persisted, politely, respectfully, but undeterred.  I volunteered to help House leadership address this issue in partnership with them.  They agreed, and I started to do more homework.

This summer, the staff in my office and I created fact sheets about the welfare program.  We outlined the goals that we wanted to achieve in a new bill that reframed the issue away from fraud and toward investing in the people of Massachusetts and moving them from welfare to work and self-sufficiency.  We crafted a bill reflecting these goals, and presented it to leadership.

House Bill H.3756, An Act encouraging low-income savings and economic opportunity, was approved by the House last month.  For the first time in my legislative career, I managed and led the debate on the floor of the House as we considered major legislation.  In the bill, we proposed to reinvest in our most vulnerable citizens, allocating $11 million for education, skills development, job training, and job placement services to welfare recipients, programs that had been cut over 75% in the previous decade.  For the working poor, we provided $5 million for more child care, a well-documented barrier to stable employment.  We took a significant step toward breaking the cycle of dependency on subsidized government programs and creating opportunities to transition our most vulnerable residents towards a path of self-sufficiency.

The return on investment in funding for workforce training and education is clear.  In the long term, getting more people into good jobs will reduce spending on state-subsidized programs in the areas of child care, public assistance, health care, housing, energy, and transportation, among others.  It’s a win for families and for taxpayers.

We included in the bill a special commission to study poverty more broadly and how it can be reduced by engaging the public, private and nonprofit sectors throughout our state.  The commission would research the root causes of poverty and income inequality and the potential long-term municipal and state government savings resulting from effective poverty reduction measures.  The problem we face as a society is this:  our current government safety net programs are good and necessary and working, but they are not acting as intended, as a trampoline that will allow citizens to get back into the workforce.  Economic mobility for most of our citizens is at its lowest point since the Gilded Age, over 100 years ago.  So the poverty commission’s goal includes creating solutions to put some bounce in our safety net, lower unemployment rates across the commonwealth, direct state funding towards creating new jobs, and reduce the structural budget deficits vexing the budget process each year.  Ultimately, if successful, we could either lower taxes or invest the savings in high priority needs:  education, infrastructure, local aid, workforce training, and more.

The best social program for any individual is a good, steady job with decent wages and benefits.  I want to make sure that the Massachusetts economy works for everyone in Massachusetts who wants to work.  By investing in the most vulnerable members of our communities, we can create real opportunities that will in turn benefit our children, our communities, and our commonwealth.
 

Tom Conroy is state representative for the 13th Middlesex District, which includes Marlborough, Sudbury, Framingham, and Wayland.  He can be reached at Thomas.Conroy@MAHouse.gov or 617-722-2014.