big ad

kaus files dot com logo

Crock of Goldstein

The return of the Snipe-o-Meter.


Posted Sunday, July 23, 2000

        Two month's ago the Washington Post's Amy Goldstein made the front page with a story describing how welfare caseloads had stopped shrinking in Indiana and several other states. The piece didn't come close to justifying its ominous hed ("Welfare Reform's Progress is Stalled") since caseloads were still falling nationally. But Goldstein had at least latched onto an interesting fact, namely that in some states the people left on the rolls were those euphemistically described as 'hard to serve'--people with "overwhelming problems." Goldstein seemed to imply that some new federal initiative was required, although it wasn't clear what this might be, since Indiana was already redirecting its program (and one point of the 1996 welfare reform was to let states try various approaches and find out which ones work).

        Last week, Goldstein was back on the front page with another vaguely portentous piece, "Geography of Welfare Is Changing." This story is so muddled, ill-informed and dishonest that it justifies the return of the notorious kausfiles Snipe-o-Meter. As usual, the primary text (Goldstein's piece) is printed in boldface, followed by context and perspective from the kausfiles staff.

As welfare rolls have plummeted in recent years, families that still rely on government assistance are increasingly concentrated in big cities, according to a new study, which cautions that welfare reform is failing to ease the burden of poverty on urban America.
This is Goldstein's lede. She's hyping a study from the Brookings Institution's Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, a relatively new wing of Brookings that was pushed by former Fannie Mae chief (and Mondale aide) Jim Johnson. For the past few years the "Urban Center" has been putting out reports documenting with seeming precision what everyone has known about welfare for decades: that the most troubled, hard-core welfare recipients are those concentrated in urban ghettos (the so-called "underclass"). As welfare has been revamped, the national welfare rolls have fallen by about half--but urban welfare recipients haven't left the rolls as quickly as non-urban recipients, so the remaining caseload has became more "concentrated" in cities.

        This isn't a surprise. But the Urban Center seems to regard it as a blinding revelation. "In 1994 ... 48 percent of welfare recipients lived in the counties containing the nation's 100 largest cities. By contrast, in 1999, these counties were home to 58 percent ...." You see, it's an urban problem! ("Cities fundamentally matter to welfare reform," says the Center's director, Bruce Katz.) And urban problems require urban solutions, and Urban Centers!

        Reporters usually know enough about welfare to know that the Urban Center's banal statistics aren't news. (I once attended a Katz press event with a dozen reporters who sat around slack-jawed, asking themselves, "Do they really expect us to write about this?") But this year the Center added a twist, implying that there was something close to a crisis at hand: "Current welfare policies may exacerbate cities' burden of poverty, and cities cannot bear this burden alone," warns the 2000 Report. Cities are "shouldering a disproportionate welfare burden."

        Goldstein fell for it. The only problem is that there is no evidence, in Goldstein's piece or anywhere in the Brookings study--or anywhere else, that I know of--that welfare reform is, as her lede says, "failing to ease the burden of poverty on urban America." Quite the opposite. Poverty has fallen across the nation since 1993. The poverty rate in central cities has fallen from 21.5 percent to 18.5 percent, which translates into almost 2 million fewer poor people. Welfare caseloads have fallen too. The urban share of the dwindling caseload has grown because urban caseloads have fallen more slowly than non-urban caseloads--but they've still fallen, and not by just a bit. The Center itself says, "Between 1994 and 1999, the urban counties' welfare caseloads dropped by 40.6 percent." [Emphasis added.]

        That's not just an easing of the "burden" of poverty, it's a dramatic easing--made all the more dramatic because, under the 1996 reform, the amount of federal money available to assist the poor remains fixed, meaning that there is more money for each welfare case left. True, a 40 percent decline may not be as big an easing as the 51.5 percent by which the overall national caseload has shrunk, but so what? Things have still gotten much better in the cities, as far as the "welfare burden" goes.

        It's amazingly deceptive for a respectable institution like Brookings to suggest otherwise, and equally amazing that a respectable paper like the Post would fall for that perverse spin. Under the reasoning of Goldstein and the Urban Center, if there were only three welfare recipients left in the entire nation, but two of them lived downtown, then cities would be in trouble because they were "shouldering a disproportionate welfare burden."

The evidence that welfare recipients are becoming clustered in big cities follows other recent findings that the program is becoming racially isolated, with African Americans and Hispanics accounting for a growing share of the families who remain on the rolls.
The air of crisis in Goldstein's piece includes the worry that the welfare caseload is becoming not only increasingly urban but increasingly black and Hispanic. It would be perfectly understandable if that were happening, since African-Americans and Hispanics have always made up a disproportionate share of long-term welfare recipients (when compared with their share of all welfare recipients, long- and short-term). People who've been on welfare a long time presumably will have the most trouble getting off.

        Perfectly understandable. Except that the Brookings study itself finds it isn't happening. The Urban Center investigated the race issue, and reports: "Since 1996, the overall racial composition of the welfare caseload in 20 of the largest urban counties has changed only slightly." The share of the caseload that was African-American increased by only "0.6 percentage points between 1996 and 1999." That's because "[b]lack and Hispanic welfare recipients in urban counties have left the welfare rolls at roughly the same rate as white urban recipients ...."

        In other words, it's not just that Goldstein's scare story about racial isolation isn't really that scary--since even if the black share of the falling welfare rolls were increasing, the number of blacks on welfare would still be falling quite rapidly. It's not just that Goldstein's scare story about racial isolation may not be true. It's that Goldstein's scare story is refuted by the very study she's reporting on and (in other contexts) relying on. She can write the sentence she wrote only because she either didn't read, or suppressed, the Urban Center's evidence. Astoundingly, her story doesn't even mention that the Brookings study didn't find the "racial isolation" trend.

        P.S.: I call Goldstein's reports "dishonest." I don't use that word lightly. In her earlier welfare story, discussing the people left on the caseload in Indiana, Goldstein's lede sentence says that "neither Texas Gov. George W. Bush nor Vice President Gore speaks of anyone like Connie Galbraith," a struggling Indiana mother "diagnosed with a number of psychiatric disorders" who has had trouble staying employed. Instead, Goldstein says, "[b]oth candidates ... would redirect the government's attention from those who remain tethered to the welfare system to those who have joined the ranks of the working poor."

        I don't know about Gore, but this seemingly evenhanded condemnation recklessly, if not willfully, mischaracterizes Bush's push for "faith-based" efforts to "save and change lives" (something he calls the "next bold step of welfare reform"). Whatever you might say about Bush's plan--I tend to think it's an ineffective alternative to a big public jobs program--it is directed precisely at people like Connie Galbraith, at people "tethered" to the welfare system, people with multiple problems, "young mothers without self-respect and education" (Bush's words), people whose "life is broken" (Bush again).

        There's a pattern here. In each of the two welfare stories, Goldstein simply ignores or suppresses central, inconvenient truths that don't fit at all into her thesis (whether the thesis is that both Gore and Bush are ignoring the 'hard-to-serve' welfare recipients or that the caseload is growing increasingly black.) The Post's editors wouldn't tolerate this sort of misreporting on an issue they really cared or knew something about, like campaign finance reform or electoral strategy. The poverty beat remains foreign territory. But must it bear the disproportionate burden of Goldstein?

        New E-mail service: Sign up, using the ListBot gizmo below, and you will be notified by e-mail whenever there's a new item on [Note: this service is free. You'll be asked a couple of demographic questions; if you find them annoying just leave them unanswered.]

Join the mailing list!
Enter your email address below,
then click the 'Join List' button:
Powered by ListBot

Is Robert Wright a Marxist?

posted 03.20.00

        Recently archived:

        The Real Hillary Scandal Mr. and Mrs. Clinton forgot to get their stories straight.

        The Gift of Nader Gore could use a rival on his left.

        Rehnquist's Scandalous Shmatte Did he deduct that $30,000 robe?

        What's He Hiding? Notes toward a unified Bush theory.

        Special Re-Flogging Edition More on WaPo's hypocritical critic.

        CBS's Defective Defector 60 Minutes adopts Internet news standards.

        Looking for Mr. Good Death Mickey's Assignment Desk #8.

        Another Greenhouse Effect Resurgence of "labor resurgence" stories puzzles experts.

        Crosswired Politics Why the parties are trading places on some issues.

        The Toobin Crisis, Day 141 Ann Godoff vs. Charles Peters.

        The Purnick Platform The new NYT lets it all hang out.

        Run, Peggy, Run! The best anti-Hillary candidate.

        Kuttner's Poor Statistics Have child poverty rates 'scarcely moved'?

        Drew's Cluelessness Please don't let her anywhere near the First Amendment.

        Why Gore Won't Pick Richardson An impolite thought ....

        How Convenient! Now McCain tells us.

        Now She's Done It Maybe that nice centrist Mrs. Clinton really is against welfare reform.

        Pardon Our Reporting Clinton left the door wide open!

        Elian: An Overlooked Angle? Castro did Clinton a big favor last year.

        Boomers Against Death The shift against the death penalty isn't necessarily a shift to the left.

        The Perfect Campaign All e-mail, all the time!

        No Justice, No Paez The LAT and 'judicial activism.'

        Kausfiles Battles for the Vital Center! Why Bush has plenty of time to reposition himself.

        Clean Sheets The case for selling the Lincoln Bedroom.

        Don't Push It, Hillary Plus: kausfiles moves its cheese!

        Faster Politics Why 'momentum' ain't what it used to be.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Chicken! Fifth of a series.

        Hillary's Shocking Truth Plus: the Nissan Cojones Watch.

        Hit Poems A kausfiles contest.

        Gore's Press Problem Plus: How he blew his chance for a New Hampshire knockout.

        Bush Knows What "Regatta" Means Bradley's SATS; the media's moodswing; the neolibs' nightmare.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite, Part III! How dare Isikoff write a book, says Toobin in his book.

        Not Gotcha Why Gore's gay flip was a genuine gaffe.

        Pay Up, Shrum! Litmus test flip-flop smoking gun.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite 'Tawdry voyeurism,' anyone?

        Cuomo Family Values Did Mario raise his son to be Hillary's Boy?

        DeParle Gets Half the Story The NYT doesn't tell us what we need to know about Milwaukee's poor.

        Bill Clinton Wants You on Welfare! Is this the dole administration after all?

        The Pornographer Who Didn't Bark Why wouldn't Flynt bust Newt?

        Yes, There Are Easy Answers! The NYT and WaPo find a quick fix for affirmative action.

        Who Stole Nissan's Cojones? Jerry Hirshberg'a got a lot of ... chutzpah!

        Doesn't Anyone Want to Be Famous? The political opportunity of a lifetime.

        The Ending of the Black Underclass, Part XVIII African-American welfare receipt falls to new low.

        Just Buzz Me! Synergy City! Harvey Weinstein plans a TV show based on Talk.

        Is Daniel Patrick Moynihan the Devil? A review of the evidence to date.

        Harvey Scores Again! An exciting new Talk contest.

        Is It Over? Clinton's Pathetic Second Term Revealing the one Big Thing he still might accomplish.

        Maybe Bush Didn't Snort Coke -- Maybe He Dropped Acid! One solution to the Bush drug mystery.

        George Bush, Drug Pioneer? Bush's pharmacological time-line seems a little ... out of the mainstream.

        Will Tina Fire Lucinda? Talk and truth.

Copyright 2000 Mickey Kaus.

In Association with