document: How much more of an `` investment '' should American taxpayers make in the welfare system ? This is the question the House of Representatives is scheduled to take up today when it votes on the Family Welfare Reform Act of 1987 . The bill proposes $ 5.2 billion in new spending over five years , and most of that will increase benefits currently received by welfare recipients . It appears that what we have here is something of a Trojan horse -- a piece of legislation that is represented as `` reform '' when all it does is expand existing welfare programs . The bill 's questionable premise is that larger expenditures on welfare will reduce welfare dependency . This thinking was nicely summarized by Rep. Anthony Beilenson , who said plainly , `` The truth is , for welfare reform to be successful , it 's got to be expensive . '' The proposed new spending on welfare should be viewed as an investment , say its proponents , led by Rep. Thomas Downey . They point out that part of the money will go for special education , training and work programs for welfare mothers , to induce them off the rolls and into jobs . At the same time they say , certain existing benefits -- mainly Aid to Families With Dependent Children -LRB- AFDC -RRB- -- must be increased to offset real declines since the base year of 1970 . House members on both sides of the aisle agree that welfare-to-work programs are worthwhile . That conclusion was presumably the basis for the bipartisan consensus that was going to produce a serious welfare-reform bill this year . But less than a quarter of the $ 5.2 billion outlay would go for that purpose . The bulk of the new money would go to higher AFDC pay-outs , extension of mandatory benefits to two-parent families and maintenance of certain benefits for welfare recipients earning some income . In short , the Family Welfare Reform Act amounts to an expanded investment in the status quo . Of course , House Democrats could hardly promote this bill as more of the same . That might produce reprisals from voters who 've watched their tax dollars build and maintain the welfare system , with little evident return on their investment . Instead , after nearly 20 years , the system 's defenders and funders repeatedly tell the public that the problem , if anything , has gotten worse . So the House 's liberal majority hoped to achieve an increase in welfare outlays by making a bow to `` reform . '' In fact , while the level of AFDC benefits has decreased in real terms since 1970 , the total level of all welfare benefits has not . Nearly all AFDC families also receive Medicaid coverage , for instance ; more than three-quarters receive food stamps , and one-third have children who receive free school meals . One-quarter receive housing assistance . Together , spending for the seven major welfare programs -LRB- those just mentioned plus the Women , Infants and Children program and the Low Income Energy Assistance program -RRB- has actually increased since 1970 by 232 % in constant dollars , to an annual total $ 65.7 billion . The House Democrats ' claim that welfare recipients are worse off than they were in 1970 -- in terms of the level of benefits received -- is dubious . Measured in the terms that really count -- namely the number of welfare dependents liberated from the rolls -- the situation has become worse . During the unprecedented expansion of the welfare state , the most notable and highly publicized phenomenon has been the development of an entrenched class of long-term welfare dependents . It is difficult to accept that the $ 4.3 billion increase in basic benefits proposed in the Family Welfare Reform Act will do much of anything about the problem of hard-core welfare dependency . At the least , welfare reform should have these goals : to shrink rather than enlarge the welfare system , to ultimately eliminate perverse incentives to remain on welfare , and to make work the focus of the system . The House bill does n't do that . By adding several welfare programs to what already exists -LRB- without eliminating any -RRB- , the House bill adds another layer to an already complex welfare system . By further increasing rather than gradually reducing the level of benefits available to recipients , it makes welfare more , not less , enticing . By diluting proposed work-for-welfare requirements , it diminishes the importance of work . Earlier this year , there were hopeful signs that we would see sweeping , serious welfare-reform legislation emerge from Congress . Democrats and Republicans alike agreed on the need for change . This rare opportunity is being squandered .
extractive_keyphrases: welfare reform welfare recipients welfare benefits welfare programs welfare system american taxpayers welfare dependency investment house democrats