"America's Safety Net" was NEVER intended to catch the poor. It had to be SOLD as a policy intending to move people from poverty to self-sufficiency but that is not what Jason and the others had in mind when it was being developed. No matter how you look at it--from a policy perspective or from a performance perspective--it is clear that poverty reduction was not its intent.

If you remember when TANF was being developed American businesses were experiencing severe labor shortages. There were simply not enough workers to do the jobs to satisfy our growing SERVICE SECTOR economy. Employers needed a new labor pool and needed cheap workers and with women pretty much maxing out their labor force participation--the only available and half-way attractive untapped pool of workers were women (mostly...) on AFDC.

It was perceived that this pool of people had no experience working and therefore needed to be trained up in "soft skills"--showing up for work on time, dressing appropriately for work, answering "Who is Soc Sec and why do they get so much of my paycheck?" kinds of questions that provided an understanding of the basics about work. Great. But employers did not want to pay for this--so they tied the benefits received through TANF to obtaining those skills through soft skills training and on the job training type of programs. People on TANF could get their GED/HSED's.

Then, in order to make work pay more than cash benefits AND to keep WAGES LOW, TANF subsidized wages by paying for Child Care expenses, TANF paid for health care (CHIP), paid for housing (Section 8 and other HUD housing programs), paid for transportation (in rural areas--car purchase programs, in urban areas--public transportation because vehicle purchases were not allowed in areas that competed with already heavily subsidized transportation programs) and paid for income taxes through the Earned Income Tax Credit Program. The only one of these to survive at the same level as 12 years ago has been the EITC--but that is another topic entirely.

Something like 80% who left TANF for jobs worked at TEMP agencies and a majority who received training received training as Certified Nursing Assistants. The next largest group worked as child care providers--a growth industry under TANF--because child care was subsidized because TANF policies created the need for more child care providers as TANF requires participation in some sort of work or work activity but will pay for child care. Yikes. Also, there was no corresponding training program for non-custodial parents--mostly men--and it is men that suffer disproportionally when it comes to unemployment--particularly African American men.)

TANF was NEVER INTENDED to lift people out of poverty. As a policy--it was intended to supply employers with a pool of low wage workers. The reason why this program fails so miserably is because the labor market has changed and the economy has changed--but it would fail under any economy--because TANF success was measured as lowered welfare cases--not increased income or wealth for participants.

I agree that TANF is going to fail this country because so many have exhausted their benefits--but there won't be money laying around to help them--as there will be the "newly poor" (whom I see everyday in my line of work) lined up to apply. Speaking as a pessimist, there will be a lot more poor people in the near future and I hope--I HOPE-- that we will revisit welfare reform before TANF fails. We need to toss out TANF and quit thinking that poverty is a social problem with economic consequences. It is an economic problem with social consequences.