The Policy of Welfare Reform

Welfare reformulation is a common theme between even opposing sides, who come to a consensus only in agreement of a necessary change. Yet, it is this very change on which the debate centers. Generally, both Senator Kennedy and Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute define the basic problem as poverty, and possess the same fundamental goal to alleviate the poor population. Yet, they differ drastically when this basic problem becomes the specific policy of welfare. Kennedy essentially defines welfare problems through state inadequacies, focusing primarily on lagging employment opportunities and dwindling social services for children (Library of Congress 2). Tanner claims that the welfare program begets a perpetual cycle in which illegitimacy, dependence, and crime are both the causes and results of a failed solution (Congressional Testimony 3). Their arguments align once more in their shared belief of policy inefficiency, which actually becomes a source for both of their underlying causes.

In spite of this governmental inefficiency, Kennedy and Tanner look to starkly different places to find causes for their problems. Kennedy tends to blame the government directly, specifically focusing on Republican tendencies to cut programs (Library of Congress 4), while as Tanner looks to societal dependence of government aid (Congressional Testimony 1). Both manipulate different sets of data, and rely upon an evocation of combined emotion and reason. Kennedy especially makes use of symbols, as he continually relays stories of woe throughout his speech, and particularly focuses on children. He appeals to the inevitable vulnerability of a child in synecdoche, as an immigrant child "will not be able to go down to the nurse's office," in fact he claims that the child "will not even be able to get in the door" (Library of Congress 5). Tanner depends on other tactics, and bombards his listeners with numbers, including incessant statistics. He reiterates that he found that "'31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy… told [the Journal of Research on Adolescence]… that they believed a baby would present a problem,'" as he restates his percentage as "69 percent… did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem" (Congressional Testimony 2). They tend to be ambiguous about the exact causes, instead blaming general groups or ideas for the welfare problem.

Both believe that they each hold the interests of those in poverty in high esteem, but other interests begin to emerge in their arguments. Kennedy clearly supports a political party, as he rails against the inability of Republicans. Although he attempts to promote those programs which would further both employment and social services, they fall patently into that of traditionally Democratic interests, which focuses on the employment of a strong central power. He claims that the new legislation for the states will "not be sensible new flexibility but enormous new financial pressure" (Library of Congress 6). Tanner, however, admonishes governmental control, especially that of the federal government, and outlines short term plans to give states block grants with "few if any strings" (Congressional Testimony 4). Unlike Kennedy, Tanner values liberty for states, and pushes for individualized efforts. While both agree about the current inefficiency of welfare programs, their ideas for better policy efficiency are dissimilar.

These opposing proposals for reform both claim to boost the current efficiency, but in fact promote different values. Kennedy's policies are focused on the individual person or family, and attempt to fulfill the idea of personal security. They exemplify an equitable division of goods, regardless of a person's status. Tanner also promotes this idea of equality, but rather, he concentrates on the equality of opportunity, pushing for the removal of tax and regulatory policies that are "designed to discourage economic growth and reduce entrepreneurial opportunities" (Congressional Testimony 6). He seeks to uphold the security of traditional societal values and does not support Kennedy's attempts to create employment security. These opposing views of welfare reform grow increasingly different with the move from simple problem definition to the specifics of policy implementation. Although they may agree on the basic problem of poverty, they propose completely polar opinions in terms of both the policy itself and the values it embodies.