With media flooding the airwaves and newspapers with numerous suggestions for getting rid of "welfare as we know it," public policymakers and journalists gathered yesterday to discuss the nation's welfare status.
Although the panel was not able to come to a consensus, many speakers agreed the welfare debate has been one of the most publicized in the nation.
"There is no more important issue in urban America than this debate," said Charles Eisendrath, director of the Michigan Journalism Fellows, the group that sponsored the forum.
Wendell Primus, former U.S. deputy assistant secretary for human services, said public relations watered down and changed welfare policy in the Clinton administration to make it media-friendly.
"They dominate public policy decision-making," Primus said. "If you couldn't make it into a short vignette, you had to change it."
Primus said calling for welfare reform helped Clinton win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1992.
"He used the issue of welfare reform to distinguish himself from other candidates," Primus said.
But some journalists said public opinion on welfare is not primarily shaped by the media's treatment of the issue.
"I think the media was a small player," said Jason DeParle, a correspondent for The New York Times. "Reporters didn't do a good job at covering welfare issues."
The debate has focused on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which Clinton signed into law last year. It mandates work for welfare recipients and cuts benefits to legal and illegal immigrants.
Cecilia Munoz, deputy vice president for research, advocacy and legislation at the National Council of La Raza, said the bill is damaging to immigrants who have been living in the United States and paying taxes.
"So much of this legislation is a straight-up budget cut aimed at immigrants who are legally in the United States," Munoz said. "The human consequences of these changes are extreme."
New York University political science Prof. Lawrence Mead, who testified before Congress about the legislation, said that although putting welfare recipients to work is ideal, there are costs that must be considered.
"It requires a regime where the recipients get help to work," Mead said. "To do that requires large-scale investments in bureaucracy."
Other panelists said that although the improving economy has helped reduce the number of people on welfare rolls, it cannot be depended on in the long run.
"Can we take the health of the economy for granted?" asked M. Gasby Greely, vice president for communications of the National Urban League. "We know that's a slippery slope."
Greely also said that while the unemployment rate is decreasing, "more and more low-wage jobs offer little or no benefits."
Kevin Fobbs, a board member of the Wayne County Family Independence Agency and columnist for The Detroit News, said setting work standards and time limits for welfare recipients is effective.
"A lot of families who are on welfare need some kind of empowerment," Fobbs said.
Mickey Kaus, a writer and contributing editor for The New Republic, agreed that legislation will help end poverty.
"It started the process by which we will confront and finally solve ghetto poverty," Kaus said.
However, some said the bill will be harmful to women. Rita Henley Jensen, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, said the bill will increase incidents of domestic violence.
"I know one of the implications of the new law will be that women will be forced to stay in abusive relationships," said Jensen, who was on welfare for eight years after leaving an abusive husband.
ADDIE SMITH/Daily
Journalists Rita Henley Jensen, M.Gashy Greely and Kevin Fobbs take part in a panel discussion about welfare and its treatment by the media yesterday.