Before new laws designed to "end welfare as we know it" were implemented this year, Congress was already considering ways to undo the reforms it passed in 1996. Since July 1 when the law went into effect, Congress has deliberated on provisions in the new budget that would widen the already existing loopholes in the law.
Proponents say the best way for people with no work experience to enter the workforce and get training is through a transitional program. The transitional program "workfare" was a major component of the welfare reform passed last year. However, new requirements are being placed on employers that will make it much more expensive for small businesses or organizations to participate in the program, in turn making it more difficult for states to meet federal work participation rates mandated last year.
New stipulations on the "workfare" program say that clients working in public or nonprofit sector jobs must not only be paid at least minimum wage, but they also must receive unemployment, retirement, and other benefits.
Though the bill was designed to help employees by giving them a more "dignified" wage, the new stipulations may have the opposite effect. Because fewer employers will be able to participate in the program, welfare recipients cannot be guaranteed a job. With no job and no cash benefits, families will be forced into poverty rather than rehabilitated out of it.
Were Congressmen voting for fair wages or for getting themselves re-elected?
The Budget Deal: Compromise or "Cop Out?"
The so-called "monumental" and "miraculous" budget deal is not all it’s cracked up to be. Among the problems with the deal: uncertain revenue projections, uncommitted spending cuts, and continued runaway entitlements.
Though the budget theoretically will be balanced by 2002, this depends on the continual record economic growth. With the uncertainty of the current market, there is no sure way to predict that tax revenues will continue to skyrocket the way they have over the past several years. To count on the continuance of the unprecedented growth experienced recently when such great potential for a dip in the market exists is risky at best.
Tax cuts begin right away, but spending cuts in programs (most of which have not been specifically outlined) will not be implemented until at least the year 2000. Not only does this force us into more debt by spending $70 billion before fixing the problem, but it enlarges government by 20%. Growing government to eliminate the deficit seems absurd. However, by delaying budget cuts, legislators guarantee their job safety and approval ratings as most of these cuts will not be made until after the next presidential election. (That’s two elections for House members!)
The core problem plaguing the budget will not be solved by this latest reform. The budget has a long-term glitch in it — entitlements. Without a major overhaul of programs like Social Security and Medicare, any fix can only be seen as temporary. This budget does not fix the current entitlements, and, in fact, adds more to an already heaping plateful.
Some legislators have expressed the hope that this budget agreement will lead to a real budget reform in the future. However, if Congress repeats itself, the "reforms" passed may be undone before the budget is ever balanced.
Local Teacher Featured in The Wall Street Journal
Yesterday’s (July 31) Wall Street Journal featured an article by Sedro Wooley school teacher Jeff Leer on his distressing experience with our state’s NEA affiliate.
Jeff found himself in possession of a singular "honor" from his union--a letter from the WEA’s top attorney threatening him with a lawsuit for talking with his district about the Attorney General’s prosecution of the WEA. The soft-spoken elementary school teacher and coach has since become an unlikely spokesman for TEACHERS FOR A RESPONSIBLE UNION V. THE WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, and is the lead plaintiff in the federal class action suit against the WEA. (Apparently the union’s intimidation tactic didn’t work on Jeff.)
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"