Feminists Not Fooled by Bush's Welfare Proposal, NOW Translates White House Spin

January 15, 2003

"The Bush Administration has dressed up last year's bad welfare proposals, but these new clothes are a lot like the Emperor's," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "All the spin makes it sound like a dream-come-true, but the substance shows a mean streak when it comes to helping families ravaged by a weak economy and soaring unemployment."

Here's what the White House says the welfare proposal will do, compared with NOW's translation, point by point.

Bush says: The proposal will "help more welfare recipients achieve independence through work."
NOW Translation: More families will be pushed off the rolls, even if there are no jobs to be found—there are no exceptions for high unemployment or even escaping from domestic violence. Bush's message to poor families here is "Sink or swim." Sounds conservative to us, but certainly not compassionate.

Bush says: The proposal will "increase the welfare-to-work resources available for families."
NOW Translation: We're spending the same amount on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) that we spent seven years ago—with no cost-of-living increase. So funds will be stretched even thinner while the White House pretends that it is helping poor families.

Bush says: The proposal will "protect children and strengthen families."
NOW Translation: With poor moms and dads required to work more hours each week, and not enough child care to fill the gap, the White House is setting up a generation of latch-key kids. The Bush proposal brags that it will "continue historically high" support for childcare. Actually, the proposed $4.8 billion is pathetically low, funding less than 15 percent of need and potentially endangering millions of children.

Bush says: The proposal will "empower states to seek new and innovative solutions to help welfare recipients achieve independence."
NOW Translation: Wow, it's a Super-Waiver for the states. A so-called Ticket to Independence? Whose independence? This proposal gives states a green light to minimize or overlook important eligibility criteria and program rules under the guise of reducing red tape. It overrides long-standing congressional safeguards. For states in economic crisis, a free-for-all on TANF funds will be mighty tempting.

"What would be an improvement to the proposal? Increase childcare funding so that no mother is forced to leave her child without quality care. Get rid of "marry or else" initiatives. Count job training, vocational education and higher education—they are important preparation for work. And expand the Family Violence Option to help domestic violence survivors. Now that would be a good start," Gandy said.

###

Sign up to receive press releases by email.