Little examined elements in the welfare reform debate: The diminished male and the decreased value of education in the labor market

Abstract

Since the 1994 national elections, the rhetoric of the welfare debate has been framed in terms of dependency and the culture of poverty versus effects of the changing labor market. In the Contract with America, Gingrich, Armey, and the House Republicans (1994) have argued that government programs designed to give a helping hand to the needy have instead bred illegitimacy, crime, illiteracy, and more poverty. Their solution was to cap welfare spending by removing welfare as an entitlement and to give block grants and certain levels of discretion to the states to develop and administer welfare programs at the state level. Additionally, several consequences designed to engender responsibility were added: Provide no welfare to teen age parents; require beneficiaries to work or to be in training no later than two years after first benefits; grant no more than five years of benefits to anyone during his or her life time; require that paternity and responsibility be established in all illegitimate births before welfare benefits are sought.