porters and critics of the new law disagreed not only about its potential effect on needy citizens, but also about the states’ ability to handle the problem of poverty better than the federal government.Supporters of the welfare reform bill believed that the federal government allowed welfare to become a lifelong entitlement, rather than temporary assistance. Many Americans also argued that the national government was too inefficient and bureaucratic to properly administer programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children and that state governments deserved at least the opportunity to control welfare. They contended that states, largely free from federal regulations and more in touch with their residents, could more effectively implement their own welfare systems.On the other hand, many lawmakers and experts contended that the federal government should always guarantee some level of financial assistance to low-income Americans. Critics asked how state governments would provide welfare during recessions, when unemployment increases the demand for financial assistance. In addition, many doubted that the states had the necessary infrastructure to provide welfare recipients with job training and childcare.The results of the 1996 welfare reform bill are still being compiled and analyzed. So far the news is encouraging. “Welfare caseloads across the nation fell by 1.2 million people between August 1996 and April 1997” (U.S. Gen. Acct. Office, 1997, p.6). There have been significant reductions in the number of welfare recipients in almost every state. For example, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Massachusetts have about 25 percent fewer people on welfare than they did in 1993. Supporters of the welfare bill give credit for this caseload reduction not only to the legislation but also to reform-minded governors and innovative state experiments. “The welfare reform law was designed to promote work, and that is exactly...
