Quote:
Originally posted by Don Ro
Perhaps no two states resemble each other more closely than Minnesota and Wisconsin. Among other things, each has a population of roughly 5 million, each is dominated by a single metropolitan area, and each has a long-standing progressive political tradition. But in charting welfare reform, no two states have taken paths that diverged more markedly.
[skip a bit]
Governor Thompson's reforms have virtually eliminated Wisconsin's welfare caseload. The number of families receiving welfare has dropped from its high of more than 100,000 to only 10,185 as of the end of 1998, a 90 percent decline.
[and again]
Not surprisingly, Minnesota's approach has produced results very different from Wisconsin's. Minnesota's caseload peaked in 1992 at 66,212. By the end of 1998 it had fallen 30 percent, to 46,322, just one third the decline experienced by Wisconsin. In part, this difference in results reflects the fact that no one now moves to Wisconsin in order to collect welfare benefits. In Minneapolis, on the other hand, the home of Minnesota's largest welfare population, roughly a third of the caseload every year is new arrivals from other, mostly nearby states with lower benefits or more demanding programs, such as Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana.
By supporting able-bodied recipients who do not work, Minnesota's welfare system needlessly perpetuates dependence.
|
That is a terrible piece of analysis (sorry, but its true).
In summary - Wisconsin cuts welfare entitlements through "tough love". Number of welfare families drops to 10%. Minnesota's caseload drops over a (not really) similar period, despite picking up all its neighbours welfare recipients.
The questions I have:
1) How many people still live in Wisconsin and our outside the reported stats (in other words, no benefit, but still need one)?
2) How many people in Minnesota came from Wisconsin?
In other words, are there actually that many people in Wisconsin who are no longer on welfare because the programme worked (rather than drove them out of state or into homelessness)?
And what would Minnesotas drop have been without "imports".
Basically, there is VIRTUALLY NO proof that the programme worked socially, only that it reduced a number which measures welfare usage.