|
Progress in Welfare Reform:
An Interview with Louis Stokes
Aired April 13, 1999
David C. BarnettLouis Stokes saw many efforts
to reform social assistance during his thirty years in the U.S. Congress,
and we've got him on the phone to give his assessment of welfare reform
so far. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Stokes.
Louis StokesThank you, it's nice to be with
you this morning.
DCBOne of the goals of welfare reform was
to cut out some of the bureaucracies, some of the stuff we've been hearing
about, give the states more flexibility in operating their own programs.
What's your thoughts on how we've been doing in that regard?
LSWell, the evidence thus far coming in is
that for many of the states, much of the welfare data and many of their
programs are in total disarray. There has not been any ability nationwide
to be able to show any clear effect of meaningful reform as it relates
to the welfare programs. I saw a report, recently, where they indicated
that eighteen months after Congress had changed the nation's welfare programs,
that it had become clear that the mass of data that the government requires
states to collect is in such a disarray that it's impossible to determine
whether the law is working.
DCBWhat about this whole issue we've just
been hearing about, the caseworkers themselves, they feel like they've
had all this stuff dumped on them and no one's looking after their interests?
LSWell, I think that's a true and accurate
picture, just as we have just heard in the story that unfolded on your
program. This was one of the major concerns when we worked on welfare
reform legislation, and that was being able to properly train people for
work when the aim of welfare reform is to provide jobs for people so you
can take them off of the welfare rolls, but you can see the frustration,
there, that's occurring. One of the things that we've cited was that you
must have good training programs, and subsequent to the training programs,
you must have a job for that person to go on because it becomes even more
frustrating to a person who is on welfare to be either trained and not
given a job following the training or to be improperly trained and therefore
ineligible for good employment.
DCBSo has the federal government kind of
washed its hands of this; it said, "OK, we're going to turn this over
to the states, you do it?"
LSWell, I think that was the aim, frankly,
of the Republicans when they passed the legislation that they passed in
this Congress. I voted against the welfare bill, and I voted against it
because of these kind of flaws that are coming to the focus right now,
but I think this was their aim, to get the federal government basically
out of the welfare business and leave it to the states, which is a part
of the whole Republican philosophy in terms of turning over to the states
many of the federal programs, and there's a real problem with that because
as you do so, you also lose any type of control, and control goes solely
to the states, and then what you have in 50 states are myriads of nightmares
in 50 different states.
DCBSo what do you suggest we do? How can
we backtrack to change it, in your opinion?
LSWell, I'm not so sure you're going to be
able to change it until you change the composition of the Congress. The
Republicans are in charge of the Congress and this is their creation and
I don't think you can do much about it until you change the composition
of the Congress.
DCBSo say we change the Congress. What would
you like to see made different in the way we're currently doing things?
LSOK, first, what I think really has to happen
is that the federal government must maintain certain standards that are
applicable to all of the states. It is then necessary for the federal
government to continue a monitoring process as it relates to those standards.
We have to do away with each state being able to set up this whole myriad
of standards that we're seeing around the country, different cut-off times,
things of this sort, and unless we put in a floor nationwide - as we did
many years ago - in order to try and change the condition that existed
then as it related to poverty and welfare, but at that time the federal
government was really interested in what was occurring in poverty.
DCBWell thank you, Mr. Stokes.
LSAlright, sir.
DCBLouis Stokes is a former 11th District
representative to the U.S. Congress.
|