1935, federal funds only covered part of relief costs, advocates welfare fund act 2001 pdf an incentive for localities to make welfare difficult to obtain. 1940 and 1970 in which millions of people migrated from the agricultural South to the more industrial North. Additionally, all able-bodied adults without children and two-parent families were originally disqualified from obtaining AFDC funds.
Between 1936 and 1969, the number of families receiving support increased from 162,000 to 1,875,000. After 1970, however, federal funding for the program lagged behind inflation. The legislation was designed to increase labor market participation among public assistance recipients. This represented a major departure from the protectionist legacy institutionalized in U. As such, the implicit message regarding “women’s roles” was that full-time mothering was a luxury reserved only for people who could afford it.
The idea that the welfare-receiving poor had become too dependent upon public assistance also encouraged the act. The idea was that those who were on welfare for many years lost any initiative to find jobs. Those on welfare realized that taking up a job would mean not only losing benefits but also incur child care, transportation and clothing costs. Their new jobs probably would not pay well or include health insurance, whereas on welfare they would have been covered by Medicaid. Therefore, there are many reasons welfare recipients would feel discouraged from working.
Proponents of the bill argued that welfare recipients were “trapped in a cycle of poverty”. Passage of PRWORA was the culmination of many years of debate in which the merits and flaws of AFDC were argued. Research was used by both sides to make their points, with each side often using the same piece of research to support the opposite view. The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state’s TANF caseload must meet work requirements.
Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs. Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was “gutting welfare reform”. Romney’s claim was “not accurate” and “inflames old resentments”, giving it a “Pants on Fire” rating. CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was “taking the work requirement off the table” was false.