|
Paul Ryan on Welfare & Poverty
Republican nominee for Vice President; U.S. Rep. (WI-1)
|
|
|
Conservative vision: dynamic economy & real safety net
I believe the conservative vision can appeal to the majority of our citizens. It offers a way of life that consists of a dynamic economy, a thriving civil society, and a government that protects our rights
while offering a real safety net for those in need without overpowering the private economy and the private lives of citizens.
Source: The Way Forward, by Paul Ryan, First Chapter, p. 6
, Aug 19, 2014
Switch from poverty management to get people out of poverty
Q: You are proposing to rethink entitlement programs and deal with poverty. You got to conciliate 11 federal anti-poverty programs, including programs like food stamps, public housing assistance, child care aid, low-income-energy assistance, and cash
welfare. Consolidate them, have states administer them, they would get a certain amount of money and have some creativity to spend that money.RYAN: First of all, these programs don't work with each other. In many ways, they end up being
counterproductive, because poverty is a complicated problem and it needs to be customized. And secondly, we had basically a poverty management system with respect to the federal government. If you want to have a healthy economy and have real solutions,
you have to have a healthy safety net. And a safety net needs to work to get people out of poverty. So my argument here is let's not focus on input, how much money you spend. Let's focus on outcomes. Are we actually getting people out of poverty?
Source: Meet the Press 2014 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Jul 27, 2014
Customize benefits for each person, run by the states
Q: You are proposing have states administer entitlement programs. Skeptics have cited that some of the poor states are run by Republican governors who have refused to even expand access to Medicaid under the ObamaCare law. So people are skeptical that
would actually lead to constructive solutions to deal with people who are poor.RYAN: My argument is to focus on outcomes: Are we actually getting people out of poverty? And the best way to do that is to listen to people on the ground, the people who
are fighting poverty person to person, and give them more flexibility in exchange for more accountability to actually get people out of poverty. We have learned good lessons about the right way to do this and not. And I would argue that we can customize
the benefit to a person based on their particular needs which actually helps them get out of poverty long term. We've spend $800 billion every year on 92 different programs to fight poverty. Yet we have the highest poverty rates in a generation.
Source: Meet the Press 2014 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Jul 27, 2014
End dependency culture; end disincentives to work
Q: Let's talk about your own attitudes about people who are poor. In January of last year you said:RYAN (On Tape): We don't want a dependency culture. Our concern in this country is with the idea that more and more able-bodied people are becoming
dependent upon the government than upon themselves and their livelihoods.
Q: What you seem to be saying is that people have a problem with their own dependency here that government is only furthering.
RYAN: That's not my intent.
My point is we don't want to have a poverty management system that simply perpetuates poverty. We want to get at the root cause of the poverty to get people out of poverty. The federal government's approach has ended up maintaining poverty, managing
poverty. In many ways, it has disincentivized people to going to work. In some cases, you lose more in benefits if you go to work. We need to reemphasize getting people up & on their lives and helping them give them the tools to do that. That's the point
Source: Meet the Press 2014 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Jul 27, 2014
Let charities & community groups compete to fight poverty
Rep. Paul Ryan proposed a new way to help poor Americans with a plan to allow charities, community groups and even for-profit firms to compete with government for federal money to fight poverty.
The plan from Ryan would allow states to replace 11 programs ranging from food stamps to housing vouchers with "opportunity grants" to tailor aid to individual needs.
That would shift the federal government's anti-poverty role largely to one of vetting state programs to distribute aid, and they would have to give the poor a choice of providers. "There wouldn't just be a federal agency or a state agency," said
Ryan. "Instead, they could choose from a list of certified providers. We're talking non-profits, or for-profits, or even community groups unique to your neighborhood."
Source: Reuters 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Jul 24, 2014
Opportunity plan: flexible funds with benchmarks & timeline
Illustrating his new poverty plan, Ryan said a 24-year-old single mother of two could go to a local social services provider for help. Instead of applying for food stamps, housing vouchers and welfare checks, she would meet with a case manager and
draft an "opportunity plan" to achieve her goals, targeting money where it is needed most, such as transportation or child-care costs. The catch: she would have to sign a contract and meet certain benchmarks for success, such as learning new skills or
seeking work. Failure would mean a cut in aid while exceeding expectations would earn her a bonus.There would be a time limit on assistance, and Ryan said the plan would need to show strong evidence of positive outcomes and poverty reduction,
arguing such data is lacking in current programs.
Democrats and liberal policy groups bashed the plan before its release as a way to do away with programs that have formed the core of federal anti-poverty efforts since the 1960s.
Source: Reuters 2014 coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Jul 24, 2014
Civil society means we give of ourselves without government
We Americans give ourselves to every kind of good cause. We do so for the simple reason that our hearts and conscience have called us to work that needs doing, to fill a place that sometimes no one else can fill. It's like that with our families
and communities, too. The whole life of this nation is carried forward every day by the endless unselfish things people do for one another, without even giving it much thought.In books, they call this civil society. In my own experience, I know it as
Janesville, Wisconsin--a place, like ten thousand others, where a lot of good happens without government commanding it, directing it, or claiming credit for it.
That's how life is supposed to work in a free country. And nothing undermines the essential and honorable work of government more than the abuse of government power.
Source: Speech at 2012 Values Voters Summit
, Sep 14, 2012
Cold social programs have displaced civility and charity
After spending trillions of dollars on [the federal government's] centralized solutions, we have found that many of the problems we sought to solve with Washington money and Washington policy have actually worsened. Educational scores have declined.
Violent crime has risen over time. Out-of-wedlock births and the social pathologies that accompany them have become commonplace. Class envy economics have placed the American dream out of reach for millions of lower income families.
Cold social programs from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services have displaced civility and charity. In short, in this effort to build a great society -- we built a government that took away much of our greatness -- a greatness that was
achieved through individual endeavor.I believe that the genius of America lies within each of us and our families, our neighborhoods, and our faith; not the central planners in Washington.
Source: 2012 House campaign website, ryanforcongress.com, "Issues"
, Aug 11, 2012
Subsidize and deregulate our wealth of faith based charities
Many believe the social fabric of this nation is tattered beyond recognition. We must replace moral squalor with both public decency and private civility. I believe we can begin this process of renewal by relieving the tax burden on our families and
by supporting, through subsidy and deregulation, our wealth of faith based charities. We can help restore good citizenship be freeing up individuals to become good citizens.
Source: 2012 House campaign website, ryanforcongress.com, "Issues"
, Aug 11, 2012
Remove anti-poverty programs that dishonor human dignity
Ryan said his budget program was crafted "using my Catholic faith" as inspiration [but] the US Conference of Catholic Bishops says it "fails to meet" the moral criteria of the Church.[In response], Ryan argued that government welfare "dissolves the
common good of society, and it dishonors the dignity of the human person." He would restore human dignity by removing anti-poverty programs.
When asked about "the moral dimension" of a budget that gives tax cuts to the wealthy and cuts spending for the
poor, Ryan's answer included the phrase "subchapter S corporations." Spending on programs such as food stamps and college Pell Grants is "unsustainable," he said. If government does too much for the poor, "you make it harder" for churches and charities
to do that work.
It was a bold economic--and theological--proposition. Even Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Ryan would rather give the rich a tax cut.
Source: Dana Milbank in Washington Post, "Faith-based"
, Apr 27, 2012
End federal food stamps with block grant to the states
As the sole Democrat in the South Carolina delegation (albeit one in a district protected by Voting Rights Act provisions to guarantee minority representation), Clyburn had learned how to make himself relevant in s conservative state. He was pronuclear
and along with Senator Lindsey Graham had been instrumental in acquiring funding to deepen the Charleston port. Eric Cantor proposed block-granting food stamps -- a popular conservative idea that Speaker Gingrich's House Republicans had pushed in
1995 and had also been included in the Ryan budget plan. Much as with what Ryan had in mind for Medicaid, the proposal would essentially do away with the food stamp program and instead send each state a lump sum of federal money to spend on feeding the
poor however they saw fit."If you knew the history of my state," the South Carolina African-American told the Republicans, "you wouldn't be in favor of that." Cantor backed down immediately, and the subject did not come up again.
Source: Do Not Ask What Good We Do, by Robert Draper, p.230
, Apr 24, 2012
Direct federal grants to persistently impoverished districts
Cleaver, who grew up in the small Texas town of Waxahachie, had been conferring with his good friend and fellow Texan Jeb Hensarling, along with Paul Ryan and Appropriations subcommittee chairwoman Jo Ann
Emerson, about a project that would redirect federal funds in grant-making agencies to the districts that had been the most persistently impoverished. Many of these were white districts, like Emerson's.
The three Republicans were enthusiastic about working with Cleaver. Boehner seemed open to it as well. Cleaver dared to envision a historic press conference -- a
Republican Speaker alongside the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, announcing a bipartisan initiative to attack persistent poverty in America.
Source: Do Not Ask What Good We Do, by Robert Draper, p.255-256
, Apr 24, 2012
Food stamp program is rife with waste, fraud & abuse
The SNAP program (food stamps) serves an important role in the safety net by providing food aid to low-income Americans. But this program cannot continue to grow at its current rates. The cost has exploded in the last decade, from less than
$18 billion in 2001 to over $80 billion today.Much of this is due to the recession, but not all of it: Enrollment grew from 17 million recipients in 2001, to 28 million in 2008, to 46 million today. Very large increases occurred during years of
economic growth, when the number of recipients should have fallen.
A flawed structure fuels unsustainable growth: State governments receive federal dollars in proportion to how many people they enroll in the program, which gives them an incentive to
add more individuals to the rolls. State governments have little incentive to make sure that able-bodied adults on SNAP are working, looking for work, or enrolled in job training programs. This leads to a program rife with waste, fraud and abuse.
Source: The Path to Prosperity, by Paul Ryan, p. 29
, Apr 2, 2012
Time-limit & work requirement for need-based aid
Policymakers must reform public assistance programs to be more responsive, sustainable, and empowering to their beneficiaries. Government can play a positive role with policies that help the less fortunate get back on their feet and offer low-income
Americans the opportunity to gain control over their lives.The key to the welfare reform of the late 1990s was Congress's decision to grant states the ability to design their own systems. Congress should extend the successes of welfare reform to all
assistance programs aimed at empowering lower-income Americans by implementing reforms that give states more flexibility to meet the needs of low-income populations & to make sure that the truly needy receive the assistance they need to live meaningful,
independent lives.
Imposing time limits and work requirements on federal need-based aid is a positive reform. But education programs must be accountable and job-training programs must be effective so that vulnerable citizens can take advantage of them
Source: The Path to Prosperity, by Paul Ryan, p. 42
, Apr 2, 2012
Left federal barriers to community & institution empowerment
The key to the welfare reform of the late 1990s was Congress's decision to grant states the ability to design their own systems. Congress should extend the successes of welfare reform to all assistance programs aimed at empowering lower-income
Americans by implementing reforms that give states more flexibility to meet the needs of low-income populations. Above all, the role of policymakers must be to lift government-imposed barriers to stronger communities and flourishing lives.
Fiscal responsibility and economic opportunity are but means to a more critical end: the rebuilding of broken communities and the empowerment of families and citizens.
The ever-expansive activism of the federal government drains the vitality and displaces the primacy of the bedrock institutions that define America.
Source: The Path to Prosperity, by Paul Ryan, p. 42
, Apr 2, 2012
Voted YES on maintaining work requirement for welfare recipients.
Congressional Summary:- Prohibits any experimental pilot or demonstration project that: waives compliance with mandatory work requirements
- Rescinds and nullifies any such waiver granted before the enactment of this Act.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
Rep. REICHERT: Congress must ensure that work continues to be the centerpiece of the TANF welfare program. We are here today debating the Obama administration's efforts to undermine work requirements. Bipartisan discussions were actually happening before the Obama administration announced they would waive work requirements for welfare recipients last summer. That announcement completely undermined bipartisan negotiations in our committee about ways to strengthen this program. Usually, if an administration wants to change the law, they must submit a legislative proposal for Congress to consider, but that's not what the Obama administration did with its proposal to waive the TANF work
requirements.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
- Rep. LEVIN: Last summer the administration proposed that states would be allowed to apply for waivers and have some flexibility in terms of the application of the work requirements--not the end of them or changing them, but the implementation of them. The idea that the administration is going to try to overturn welfare reform is ridiculous. States have to apply individually for waivers, and they have to explain in detail why the approach would lead to either more employment or better jobs for people who are trying to stay off welfare.
- Rep. NEAL: I chaired the Democratic position [on 1990s welfare reform]. One of the goals of welfare reform was to move unemployed Americans from welfare to work, and it did work. The legislation has been very successful in meeting that goal. Welfare reform put people back on the work rolls. Welfare rolls have dropped by half, & poverty amongst children has dropped as well.
Reference: Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement & TANF Extension Act;
Bill H.R.890
; vote number 13-HV068
on Mar 13, 2013
Voted NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention.
Congressional Summary:Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act: Adds to National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) purposes:- providing year-round opportunities in service-learning;
- involving program participants in emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery;
- increasing service opportunities for retiring professionals;
- encouraging service by individuals age 55 or older and continued service by national service alumni;
- focusing national service on the areas of national need.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.
We created national service to let young people find opportunity to be of service and also to make an important contribution. But not all was rosy. In 2003, when I was the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee funding national service, they created a debacle. One of their most colossal errors was that they enrolled over 20,000 volunteers and could not afford to pay for it. That is how sloppy they were in their accounting. I called them the "Enron of nonprofits."
And they worked on it. But all that is history. We are going to expand AmeriCorps activity into specialized corps. One, an education corps; another, a health futures corps; another, a veterans corps; and another called opportunity corps. These are not outside of AmeriCorps. They will be subsets because we find this is where compelling human need is and at the same time offers great opportunity for volunteers to do it.
Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Serve America Act/GIVE Act;
Bill H.R. 1388
; vote number 2009-H169
on Mar 31, 2009
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.
Voting YES on this amendment would add $70 million to the Section 8 housing voucher program, funding an additional 10,000 affordable housing vouchers. Proponents of the amendment say: - This amendment would enable an additional 10,000 low-income families to afford safe, decent housing.
- To offset this increase, the amendment cuts a poorly managed computer upgrade program. The committee has been very ingenious in squirreling away money in different accounts and the bill would still provide $94 million in funds for IT projects.
- We have a choice: Do we want to help thousands of families obtain affordable housing, or do we think it is more important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD?
- Our amendment does not seek to restore the amount to the amount that the President recommended, which is $144 million more than the committee recommends, it seeks merely to restore $70 million, or about half of what the difference is to what the President recommended.
- This is less than the bare
minimum of what is needed. We have hundreds of thousands of families on waiting lists, waiting up to 10 years for decent housing for Section 8 vouchers.
-
Opponents say:- The existing bill fully funds the renewal of Section 8 vouchers. Additional funds are simply not necessary.
- The cost of Section 8 vouchers are remaining constant and in some markets are actually decreasing. As such, this funding level will provide funds to restore vouchers that may have been lost in recent years.
- The proposed reduction will cause delays in critically needed efforts to modernize antiquated legacy computer systems.
Reference: Department of Housing and Urban Development appropriations;
Bill HR 5576 Amendment 1015
; vote number 2006-267
on Jun 13, 2006
Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.
Welfare Reauthorization Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would approve $16.5 billion to renew the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal 2008 and call for new welfare aid conditions. The bill raises the work requirements for individuals getting assistance from 30 to 40 hours per week. States would be required to increase the number of recipient families working from the current level of 50 percent to 70 percent or more in 2008. The bill also provides an additional $1 billion in mandatory state child care grants and provides $200 million annually for marriage promotion programs.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Pryce, R-OH;
Bill HR 4
; vote number 2003-30
on Feb 13, 2003
Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
Vote to pass a bill that would allow religious organizations to compete equally with other non-governmental groups for federal funds to provide social service, and provide $13.3 billion in tax breaks for charitable giving over 10 years.
Bill HR 7
; vote number 2001-254
on Jul 19, 2001
Voted YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations.
Vote to establish a program that would promote more responsible fatherhood by creating educational, economic and employment opportunities and give grants to state agencies and nonprofit groups, including faith-based institutions.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Johnson, R-CT.;
Bill HR 3073
; vote number 1999-586
on Nov 10, 1999
Page last updated: Jun 16, 2016