If America has learned anything in the 30 years since this country declared "war on poverty," it is this: a problem cannot be resolved if it is not understood. Social plans that are based on misunderstanding the nature of poverty not only fail to work, they can make problems worse. Lawmakers should heed this lesson as they venture into the issue of welfare reform. This research examines the nature of welfare and contrasts the various reform experiments to the system. The potential impact of welfare reform on poverty levels, teen pregnancy and children will be explored in particular.
The challenge of welfare reform is that it touches deeply some of the core values that have divided us as a nation for more than the past 30 years (Bennett, 1995, p. 38). If this nation is to cope with the social changes of the future, America needs to close the gap between the symbols that have long driven politics and social reality. The welfare reform debate suggests that many people are more willing to cling to comfortable myths than confront the realities of work and family life in the 1990s. During the 1992 presidential campaign, for instance, former Vice President Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown, a fictitious television character, for having a child out of wedlock. Quayle attempted to stigmatize welfare recipients as irresponsible women who choose single parenthood. Even though many people scoffed at Quayle's attack at the time, Quayle's contention has been gaining in popularity in recent years. Even high-ranking members of the Clinton Administration have come to embrace Quayle's criticism of single parenthood. In accepting the assertion that single parenthood is a badge of moral failing, the direction of welfare reform becomes decisively mean-spirited and focuses on punishing the poor rather than helping them. Such is the nature of welfare reform today.
Julie Turner, 28, of Kansas City, Kansas, is a case in point. Turner is a high school dr...