Topic Overview
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for
persons living in poverty in the United States.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The Magnitude of the Problem
A. Government Measures of Poverty
1. Thresholds
2. Guidelines
B. Could the Measures be Improved?
C. The Severely Poor
D. Reforms
E. Defining Poverty
III. What Are Social Services?
IV. History of Government Social Services in the United States
A. Early Social Services
B. The Great Depression and the New Deal
C. The War on Poverty
D. Welfare Reform in the 1990s
E. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
V. Overview of Current Social Services
A. Supplemental Security Income
B. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
C. Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program
1
D. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
E. Medicaid
F. State Children’s Health Insurance Program
G. Refugee Assistance
H. Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
I. National School Lunch Program
J. Child Care Development Block Grant
VI. Understanding Poverty and the Role of Social Services
A. Two Views of Poverty
B. A Third View of Poverty
VII.
Affirmative Case Areas
A. Service Focused Cases
1. SCHIP
2. Savers Credit
3. Medicaid
B. Target Population Cases
1. Single Parents
2. Native Americans
C. Harms Focused Cases
1. Smoking
2. HIV
D. Reform Cases
1. Taxpayer Choice
2
2. Enterprise Programs
VIII.
Major Negative Arguments
A. Topicality: Poverty
B. Solvency Takeout: Extent of Poverty
C. Private Action Counterplan
D. Spending Disadvantage
E. State Counterplan
F. Capitalism
G. Dependency Disadvantage
H. Waste/Fraud Disadvantage
I. Disincentive to Work and Save Disadvantage
J. Inherency
Introduction
This year’s debate topic focuses on the problem of poverty in the United States. Poverty
impacts a large number of Americans. According to the 2007 Census, 12 percent of
Americans—approximately 37 million people—now live below the federal poverty line.1 These
numbers are only likely to climb higher in the current economic climate.2 This year’s debate
topic will give you the opportunity to discuss numerous issues related to the topic such as the
cause of poverty in the United States, the magnitude of the problem and the best solutions.
The Magnitude of the Problem
1
U.S. Census Bureau, “Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,” Released
August 2008. [http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf]
2
Shobhana Chandra and Timothy R. Homan, “U.S. Initial Jobless Claims Rose to 667,000 Last Week,” Bloomberg,
February 26, 2009.
3
Determining how many people live in poverty depends on which poverty measure you
choose.
Government Measures of Poverty. The federal government uses two measures of
poverty that differ slightly: poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines.3
Thresholds. The federal government thresholds are the original version of the federal
poverty measure. This measure was developed in the 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, an economist
with the Social Security Administration.4 Orshansky relied on 1955 U.S. Department of
Agriculture research that concluded families spent approximately one-third of their budget on
food. Borrowing the U.S.D.A’s estimated cost for a basic diet (called the Thrifty Food Plan), she
tripled it to arrive at the federal poverty threshold—theoretically, the amount of money an
average four-person family needs for food, clothing and shelter. The thresholds are adjusted
annually for inflation and are used for mainly statistical purposes, such as for reporting how
many persons live in poverty for the Census report.
3
“Methodological Issues,” Institute for Research on Poverty.
4
Sean Shurtleff, “Reforming the U.S. Poverty Standard,” Brief Analysis No. 640, National Center for Policy Analysis,
January 20, 2009.
4
United States Poverty Thresholds
Related children under 18
Wieghted Average
Size of Family Unit
Threshold
One person (unrelated individual)
10,590
Under 65 years
10,787
65 years or older
9,944
2 people
13,540
Household under 65 years
13,954
Household 65 years or older
12,550
3 people
16,530
4 people
21,203
5 people
25,080
6 people
28,323
7 people
32,233
8 people
35,816
9 people or more
42,739
None
1
2
3
4
14,291
14,237
16,689
21,736
26,166
29,782
34,345
38,511
46,143
16,705
21,027
25,364
29,168
33,610
37,818
45,529
21,100
24,744
28,579
33,098
37,210
45,014
24,366
27,705
32,144
36,348
44,168
5
6
7 8 or more
10,787
9,944
13,884
12,533
16,218
21,386
25,791
29,664
34,132
38,174
45,921
27,180
31,031 29,810
35,255 34,116 33,827
43,004 41,952 41,691
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Guidelines. The poverty guidelines are the other federal poverty measure. The
guidelines are issued by the Department of Health and Human Services and are designed to
simplify the thresholds for administrative purposes. The numbers are adjusted for families of
different sizes and used to determine who qualifies for Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, community programs, and other services.
5
40,085
United States Department of Health and Human Services 2008 Poverty Guidelines
Persons
48 Contiguous
in Family or Household States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1
$10,400
$13,000 $11,960
2
14,000
17,500
16,100
3
17,600
22,000
20,240
4
21,200
26,500
24,380
5
24,800
31,000
28,520
6
28,400
35,500
32,660
7
32,000
40,000
36,800
8
35,600
44,500
40,940
3,600
4,500
4,140
For each additional
person, add
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 15, January 23, 2008, pp. 3971–3972
Changes in Measured Poverty Over Time. Census Bureau household data show:

In 1968, the official poverty rate was 12.8 percent, meaning 25.4 million people were
considered poor.

In 2007, the poverty rate was 12.5 percent, and 37.3 million people were considered
poor.
However, household consumption indicates that basic living standards have improved
significantly. For instance:

In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population had air conditioning, compared
to nearly 80 percent of poor households in 2005, according to a 2007 Heritage
Foundation study.

In 1980, only 27 percent of the poor had microwave ovens compared to 85 percent in
2005, according to University of Chicago Professor Bruce D. Meyer.
6
A country’s poverty rate should decline as real incomes rise and living standards
increase, but the U.S. poverty rate has remained stagnant even though standards of living have
increased. This increased consumption shows that the living standards of low-income families
have improved. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the poor actually consume
about $2 for every $1 of reported income. How is that possible? The discrepancy is due to
unreported or underreported income, savings credit and welfare benefits.
Could the Measures be Improved? The government measures have widely
acknowledged flaws.5 Some argue that the current poverty level is too high.6
The current poverty standards only measure families’ gross income, which includes
before-tax wages, but not capital gains. Goss income also includes cash welfare assistance, but
excludes more valuable noncash benefits, such as Medicaid and public housing. Noncash
benefits can be substantial without affecting measured poverty. According to Cato Institute
scholar Michael Tanner, the federal government spent an estimated $12,892 per poor person on
antipoverty programs in 2005. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the federal government
spent $8.29 trillion on antipoverty programs from 1965 to 2000, mostly in the form of noncash
benefits. These benefits raise the living standards of millions of low-income people, but do not
count as income; therefore, they do not reduce measured poverty. This is the main reasons the
poverty rate has remained stagnant.
Other economists such as Ellen Frank, argue that the poverty measure is too low as
families spend much less of their total budget on food than they did when the measure was
5
Nancy Cauthen, Testimony on Measuring Poverty in America, Testimony before the House Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, August 1, 2007.
6
Sean Shurtleff, “Reforming the U.S. Poverty Standard,” Brief Analysis No. 640, National Center for Policy Analysis,
January 20, 2009.
7
established.7 Instead of spending one-third of their budgets on food, today’s families spend
closer to one-fifth of their budgets on food, according to Frank. Columbia University’s Mailman
School of Public Health estimates the percentage spent on food even lower, at one-seventh of the
family budget.8 According to these groups, families spend more on nonfood necessities such as
child care, health care, transportation, and utilities today than they did 50 years ago, for obvious
reasons: mothers entering the workforce, suburbanization, and rising health care costs, for
example. Because of this, those living in what the government defines as poverty have
decreased discretionary income that can go to fewer items or services, because costs for utilities,
child services, and others have significantly risen. The implication of this development, in the
minds of some scholars, is primarily that the measure for poverty should be increased to reflect
the increased costs of nonfood necessities.
In addition, many scholars note that federal poverty statistics do not account for the
regional differences in costs such as housing, transportation, and utilities.9 Housing costs vary
widely across the country, so that an income that might be barely adequate in Mississippi is
wholly inadequate in Massachusetts. Yet federal poverty figures make no adjustment for
regional differences in costs and advocate using a poverty measure that accounts for these
differences.
The Severely Poor. Others argue that the numbers that matter are the severely poor.
While the number of people in poverty has remained relatively stable in the recent past, there has
7
Ellen Frank, “Dollars & Sense,” The Magazine of Economic Justice, January/February 2006.
8
Nancy Cauthen and Sarah Fass, “Measuring Poverty in the United States,” National Center for Children in Poverty,
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, June 2008.
9
Diana Pearce, “Self Sufficiency Standards,” Basic Family Budget, Wider Opportunities for Women and the
Economic Policy Institute.
8
been an alarming growth of the number of people living in abject, or severe, poverty.10 The
abjectly poor in America are individuals living on $5,250 per year. This level of poverty, in
comparative terms, is only slightly above the poverty line originally set in the 1960s and affords
a person little more than food and shelter, if that. According to recent Census estimates, the
population percentage considered severely poor has reached a 32 year high. Between 2000 and
2005, the percent living at half of the poverty-level income increased by 26 percent. In 1975, the
severely poor were 30 percent of the population in poverty. Today 43 percent of persons in
poverty are severely poor by national standards. While the rate of new entrants moving into
poverty is somewhat stable, those who are becoming truly poor are increasing at a rate 56
percent higher than the growth rate of new entrants into poverty.11
Reforms. Many scholars support two fundamental reforms to the poverty standard
proposed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).12 In its 1995 report, “Measuring
Poverty,” the NAS proposed adjusting the income data by adding any government welfare
benefits received and subtracting taxes, health care spending and work-related expenses. The
adjustments would improve the accuracy of the poverty standard.13
The NAS also recommended linking U.S. poverty thresholds to approximately 80 percent
of the median (average) amount families spend on food, clothing and shelter. However, tying the
poverty standard to spending would change it from an absolute measure to a measure of relative
consumption.
10
Amy Glasmeier, “Poverty in America,” The Nation We Have Become, Penn State University, February 26, 2007.
[http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/2007/02/26/the-nation-we%E2%80%99ve-become/]
11
Ibid.
12
David Betson, Constance Citro, Robert Michael, “Recent Developments for Poverty Measurement in U.S. Official
Statistics,” Journal of Official Statistics, 2000.
13
Sean Shurtleff, “Reforming the U.S. Poverty Standard,” Brief Analysis No. 640, National Center for Policy Analysis,
January 20, 2009.
9
Some believe this would have several negative impacts. First the poverty rate would rise
immediately:

Data from a 2005 Census Bureau report show that the NAS model would have raised
the 2002 poverty rate by 1.1 percentage points, or 3.1 million people.

Classifying 3.1 million more people as poor would cost the government an extra $40
billion every year, according to Tanner’s estimate.
Second, the revised poverty rate would continue to rise because family incomes, and
therefore consumption spending, grow faster than inflation. For instance, consumer spending
grew an average of 44 percent faster than inflation from 2000 to 2007.
Finally, a relative measure would always classify a percentage of the population as poor,
encouraging further efforts to redistribute income.
American Enterprise Institute scholar Douglas J. Besharov has proposed another, poverty
standard.14 He does not endorse tying the poverty threshold to relative spending, but he would
increase it 15 percent to account for the increase in real median income since 1978. He also
proposes a few other adjustments:

In 1995, the federal government determined that the old Consumer Price Index (CPI)
overstated inflation by as much as 23 percent. Using newer CPI measurements for
the poverty standard would lower the number of Americans considered poor by 7.8
million people.

In 2001, according to Besharov, $804 billion of income was not reported by
households or counted by the IRS. Accounting for this unreported income would
reduce the number of poor by 4.7 million people.
14
Douglas Besharov, “Measuring Poverty in America,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Income Security
and Family Support, August 2007.
10

In 2004, says Besharov, the federal government spent almost $7,500 per poor person
on their health care. Counting these expenditures as income to the poor would cut
their ranks by 3.2 million.
With all these adjustments, under Besharov’s model the poverty rate in 2004 would have
been only 8.1 percent, rather than the official rate of 12.7 percent.
Defining Poverty. Below are additional definitions of poverty you may want to
consider as you research this topic:

Encyclopedia Britannica 2008
the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material
possessions. Poverty is said to exist when people lack the means to satisfy their basic needs. In
this context, the identification of poor people first requires a determination of what constitutes
basic needs. These may be defined as narrowly as "those necessary for survival" or as broadly as
"those reflecting the prevailing standard of living in the community." The first criterion would
cover only those people near the borderline of starvation or death from exposure; the second
would extend to people whose nutrition, housing, and clothing, though adequate to preserve life,
do not measure up to those of the population as a whole. The problem of definition is further
compounded by the noneconomic connotations that the word poverty has acquired. Poverty has
been associated, for example, with poor health, low levels of education or skills, an inability or
an unwillingness to work, high rates of disruptive or disorderly behaviour, and improvidence.
While these attributes have often been found to exist with poverty, their inclusion in a definition
of poverty would tend to obscure the relation between them and the inability to provide for one's
basic needs. Whatever definition one uses, authorities and laypersons alike commonly assume
that the effects of poverty are harmful to both individuals and society.
11

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2006
The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.

Scottish Poverty Information Unit
Poverty is defined relative to the standards of living in a society at a specific time. People live in
poverty when they are denied an income sufficient for their material needs and when these
circumstances exclude them from taking part in activities which are an accepted part of daily life
in that society.

The World Bank Organization
The most commonly used way to measure poverty is based on incomes. A person is considered
poor if his or her income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs.
This minimum level is usually called the "poverty line". What is necessary to satisfy basic needs
varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each
country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values.
Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a
doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not
having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness
brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.
Poverty has many faces, changing from place to place and across time, and has been described in
many ways…Most often, poverty is a situation people want to escape. So poverty is a call to
action -- for the poor and the wealthy alike -- a call to change the world so that many more may
12
have enough to eat, adequate shelter, access to education and health, protection from violence,
and a voice in what happens in their communities.

The International Conference on Population and Development
A variety of ways to define urban poverty are available, each with their own strengths and
deficiencies:
o income-based definitions: This approach seeks to specify a level of income
per capita in a household below which the basic needs of the family cannot be
satisfied. It shares the difficulties of the next class of definitions of imposing
an official's or observer's view of necessities. It does not acknowledge
variation in costs of similar goods for different consumers. The vital
importance of non-market household production and non-monetarized
exchanges in poor families is not counted.
o basic needs approaches: A set of minimal conditions of life, usually involving
the quality of the dwelling place, degree of crowding, nutritional adequacy
and water supply are specified and the proportion of the population lacking
these conditions is used to estimate the degree of poverty. The advantage of
this approach is that different conditions can be specified appropriate to
different settings. However, this reduces comparability of estimates in
different sites. Similarly, it does not take into account the willingness of
people to accept various tradeoffs deliberately (e.g., a lower quality dwelling
for reduced transportation time and expense to work).
13
o participatory definitions: In this approach, respondents from communities are
themselves invited to identify their perceptions of their needs, priorities and
requirements for minimal secure livelihood. Some sacrifice of comparability
of estimates in different communities or at different times is traded for better
information on the identified demands of the individuals themselves. At times
such analyses supplement and reinforce the more quantitative measures; at
other times they reveal a very different experienced reality. A study in
Rajasthan, India, identified 32 conditions which individuals felt necessary for
a satisfactory minimal lifestyle. Comparison of interview results over a decade
revealed that despite reductions in income of the residents, and little change in
living conditions of the kind generally surveyed in basic needs estimates,
significant improvements had occurred in experienced quality of life.
You should consider several factors as you choose the definition of poverty that works
best with your arguments. You may want to use a different definition when you are affirmative
than when you are negative. When you are affirmative you may want to topically affect a large
number of people with your social service so you choose an expansive definition or measure of
poverty. Perhaps you will choose to account for cost of living differences between cities that
may make the poverty level inadequate in some areas of the country. If you are negative, you
may want to use a more narrow definition that will allow you to argue that the affirmative team
is extra-topical, meaning they are assisting people above, as well as below, the poverty line.
Other teams will choose a definition that allows them to discuss more critical arguments such as
a “poverty of the spirit.”
What Are Social Services?
14
The resolution asks affirmatives to increase social services to persons living in poverty.
A key issue in debates this year will undoubtedly be what qualifies as a social service. For
example, a case that expands Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) would be
considered topical under some definitions, but by other definitions, it would clearly be
considered a monetary payment, not a service. The following are definitions you may want to
consider before writing your case:

BusinessDictionary.com, 2007
Benefits and facilities such as education, food subsidies, health care and subsidized housing
provided by a government to improve the life and living conditions of the children, disabled, the
elderly and the poor in the national community.

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, 2008
An activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically organized philanthropic
assistance.

OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms, 2008
Social and collective services provide final consumption for households and are distinctive for
their non-market character in most OECD countries. Collective consumption decisions and
public financing are common, as is production by governments, non-profit organizations and
subsidized private organizations. Social services comprise the following International Standard
Industrial Classification subgroups: government proper (civil or military); health services;
educational services; miscellaneous social services.
History of Government Social Services in the United States
15
The debate over what social services mean and who should receive them has waged for
years in the United States. To determine how to best increase social services in your case, you
first need to understand the history of social services in the United States.
Early Social Services. The first social services in the United States were imported from
the British Poor Laws.15 Poor Laws established three classes of poverty. First was the impotent
poor who were incapable of self-sufficiency because of their age, disability or other condition.
This group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The second
class of poverty was the able-bodied poor who suffered unemployment because of extenuating
economic circumstances. Assistance to this group generally consisted of employment in
workhouses. Third, were vagrants or beggars who refused work even in the presence of
available labor. This group received no assistance.
In the United States, localities and states handled poverty either through private entities
or churches. Similar to the British Poor Laws, some states maintained workhouses in exchange
for food or housing.16
One of the first instances of social services from the federal government were pensions
for soldiers (or their widows) wounded during active service during the Revolutionary War.
These pensions were expanded in the 1830s when any veteran of the Revolutionary War could
receive a pension.17
15
“The History of Welfare,” Welfare Information, 2008.
16
Walter I Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Service in America, 6th ed., (Simon and
Schuster, 1998).
17
Debra Graden, ed. Revolutionary War Pension Index. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2000.
Original data: Washington, D.D.: A. and G. Way, Printers, 1813.
16
The U.S. Congress enacted several programs to assist the poor such as the Civil War
Pension Program and aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.18 These pensions mirrored
the Revolutionary War requirements. In order to receive them, a soldier must have been injured
in active duty.19
In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands was the first
to offer general social services to freed slaves and refugees of the Civil War. The organization’s
primary goal was to provide basic education, housing and medical aid to refugees and former
slaves.20 The Freedmen’s Bureau helped to establish over 4,000 schools and 100 hospitals for
former slaves. The Bureau faced much resistance from opposition groups. It was disbanded by
President Andrew Johnson in December 1868.
The Great Depression and the New Deal. Government-provided social services
expanded greatly during the Great Depression, when it is estimated that one-fourth of the U.S.
workforce was unemployed. President Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted the Social Security Act in
1935.21 The Act, which was amended in 1939, established a number of programs designed to
provide aid to various segments of the population such as:

Benefits to retirees and the unemployed

Aid to Families with Dependent Children

Maternal and Child Welfare Assistance
18
Megan McClintock, “Civil War Pensions and the Reconstruction of Union Families,” The Journal of American
History, September 1996.
19
Jennifer L. Gross, “Civil War Pensions,” Encyclopedia of the American Civil War, David S. Heidler and Jeanne T.
Heidler ed. April 2005.
20
Chad Goldberg, “The Freedmen’s Bureau and Civil War Pensions: Race and Policy Feedback in America’s
Nineteenth-Century Welfare State,” American Sociological Association Convention, January 2006.
21
Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian, “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression,” Journal of
Political Economy, 2004.
17

Public Health Services

Vocational Rehabilitation
These programs were significant because they marked the first time the U.S. government
gave pensions, unemployment compensation or health insurance to anyone other than war
veterans. A number of government agencies were created to oversee the programs such as the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Education.
The War on Poverty. Government social services again became part of the national
agenda in 1962 when Lyndon B. Johnson highlighted the nation’s elevated poverty rate (around
19 percent) in his first State of the Union address.22 The legislation he introduced, termed The
War on Poverty, set in motion a series of bills and acts that created programs such as:

Food Stamps

Work Study

Medicaid

Medicare

VISTA

Job Corps

Head Start
Welfare Reform in the 1990s. Despite these programs, poverty rates remained steady
through the 1990s. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work
22
Carl M. Brauer, “Kennedy, Johnson and the War on Poverty,” Journal of American History, Vol. 69 No. 1, June
1982.
18
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This program replaced the failed social program
AFDC with a block grant program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).23 The
reform legislation had three goals:
1. Reduce welfare dependence and increase employment
2. Reduce child poverty
3. Reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing and strengthen marriage.
In the old system, the more people a state signed up for welfare, the more money it got
from Washington. The block grant broke this link, creating an incentive for states to help people
become self-supporting. Welfare caseloads began to decline in earnest after 1996. This decline
in dependence coincided with the increase in the employment of single mothers. These trends
have been particularly dramatic among those who have the greatest tendency to long-term
dependence: younger never-married mother with little education. During the late 1990s,
employment of never-married mothers increased by nearly 50 percent, of single mothers who are
high school dropouts by 66 percents, and of young single mothers (ages 18 to 24) by nearly 100
percent. Welfare reform impacted the whole welfare caseload, not just the most employable.
Not surprisingly, as families decreased reliance on social services and single mothers
transitioned into work, the child poverty rate fell, from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 17.8 percent in
2004, lifting 1.6 million children out of poverty. The declines in poverty among black children
and children from single-mother families were unprecedented. Neither poverty level had
changed much between 1971 and 995. By contrast, six years after PRWORA was enacted, these
two poverty rates had fallen to their lowest levels in national history, from 41.5 percent to 30
23
Christine Kim and Robert Rector, “Welfare Reform Turns Ten: Evidence Shows Reduced Dependence, Poverty,”
Web Memo No. 1183, Heritage Foundation, August 1, 2006.
19
percent for black children and from 53.1 percent to 39.8 percent for children from single mother
families.
According to National Center for Policy Analysis, welfare reform that emphasizes putting
welfare recipients to work, as the PRWORA legislation did, is the most successful public policy
initiative of this century.24 In fact, one year after PRWORA was enacted:

Alabama reduced its welfare rolls by 48 percent.

Indiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee reduced theirs by 49 percent.

Mississippi’s cases declined by 50 percent, Colorado’s by 51 percent, Oregon’s by 52
percent and Wisconsin’s by 58 percent.

Wyoming’s cases dropped by an astounding 73 percent.
Some argue that the decrease in poverty rates is due to the strong economy of the 1990s.
Others note that good economic conditions alone would not have produced the striking changes
that occurred in the late 1990s. Historically, periods of economic growth have not resulted in
lower welfare dependence. Indeed, during two episodes of economic expansion, the late 1960s
and the early 1970s, welfare caseloads actually grew substantially.
A national analysis of welfare leavers by O’Neill and Hill found that25:

The TANF program created in 1996 has accounted for more than half of the decline
in welfare participation since then and for more than 60 percent of the rise in
employment of single mothers.

By contrast, the contribution of the booming economy of the late 1990s to these
declines was relatively minor, accounting for less than 20 percent of either change.
24
Merril Matthews and Kristin Becker, “Making Welfare Work,” Study No. 143, National Center for Policy Analysis,
December 4, 1997.
25
Joe Barnett, “Better Off Welfare,” Study No. 225, National Center for Policy Analysis, October 7, 2007.
20
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The most recent change
to federal government social services was passed in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009, signed into law on February 17, 2009. This act intends to provide a stimulus to the
U.S. economy during the current economic downturn. It includes an expansion of social services
including:

A $3 billion emergency fund to help states pay for added welfare recipients

$15 billion expansion of the child tax credit

$86.6 billion for Medicaid

$1 billion for the Veterans Health Administration

$2 billion for Community Health Centers

$500 million for healthcare services on Indian reservations

$13 billion for low-income public schoolchildren

$2.1 billion for Head Start

$19.9 billion for the SNAP program
Proponents of the stimulus plan argue that these changes are necessary to help people in
poverty weather the current recession. Other scholars do not favor the new social service
funding because Act overturns the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restores AFDC style
funding.26 For the first time since 1996, the federal government will begin paying states bonuses
to increase their welfare caseloads. They argue that this will lead to an unnecessary expansion of
welfare rolls and increased spending.
Overview of Current Social Services
26
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds new Welfare Spending,”
Web Memo No. 2287, Heritage Foundation, February 11, 2009.
21
Currently the federal government provides a large number of social services. The
following is an overview of selected programs:
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)—provides cash to people with limited incomes
and resources. To qualify a person must be over 65, blind or disabled. They must be a resident
of the United States, not absent from the country for more than 30 days and must be either a U.S.
citizen or national. In certain circumstances, non-citizens may be eligible. Unlike Social
Security benefits, these are not based on prior work and are financed by general funds from the
U.S. Treasury. For an individual, the limit of resources one can have and still qualify for SSI is
$2,000. It is $3,000 for a couple. The maximum federal benefit level changes yearly and as of
January 1, 2008 it was $637 for an individual and $956 for a couple. In addition, some states add
on supplemental benefits for those who qualify for SSI. At the end of 2007, there were 7.36
million recipients receiving $3.7 million in monthly benefits.27
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—a block grant program through
which the federal government provides funds for individual states to design their own welfare
program for families with children.28 In order to be eligible there must be at least one parent and
child and they must be under a certain income level. This income level and the amount of
funding varies by state. The program became effective July 1997, replacing AFDC, and was
reauthorized in February 2006 through 2010. The program uses 36 percent to fits funds to
provide direct cash assistance to needy families. 24 percent is used for “other services,” which is
generally comprised of family planning and back-to-work programs. 18 percent is used to
provide childcare. Additional work support and employment programs comprise 8 percent. The
remaining 12 percent funds operating and administration costs.
27
“Understanding Supplemental Security Income,” Social Security Online, 2008.
28
“TANF Fact Sheet,” Office of Family Assistance, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html
22
TANF has three primary goals:
1. Reduce welfare dependence and increase employment
2. Reduce child poverty
3. Reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing and strengthen marriage
TANF requires its participants to work as soon as they are ready and no less than two
years after first receiving assistance. Single parents must work at least 30 hours per week and
two parent families must work between 35 and 55 hours per week. Work activities can include
job training, job searching, community service work and paid employment. The only exception
to the work requirement is for single parents of children under age 6 that cannot find child care.
Additionally, single parents with a child under age 6 are only required to work 20 hours per
week. TANF benefits, in most cases, can only be received for 5 years.
The most recent change to TANF was passed in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law on February 17, 2009. Under the new Act, instead of
receiving a flat funding level, the federal government will increase TANF payments as states
increase their welfare loads.29
In 2006, there were on average 1.9 million families (4.6 million total recipients). Total
federal spending for the program was just over $17 billion. For more on TANF see pages 16—
19.
Title XX Social Services Block Grant Program—capped entitlement program that
gives block grants to the states, which individually determine which wide-range social services
they fund. Funds are allocated on the basis of population and are given to U.S. territories as well
29
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds new Welfare Spending,”
Web Memo No. 2287, Heritage Foundation, February 11, 2009.
23
as states. Since Title XX was established in 1975, approximately $2.8 billion has been allocated
to the grants each year.
The social services funded with the grant range from child abuse to providing care for the
elderly. Approximately 19 million individuals have received assistance from the Title XX
grants, 59 percent of which are children. From 2002 to 2006, child foster care services receive
15 percent of the funds, special services for individuals with disabilities receive 14 percent of the
funds, child protective services receive 11 percent of the funds and child day care receives 8
percent of the funds. In 2006, states spent more than $193 million of the funds for hurricane
relief.
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)—formerly known as the Food
Stamp program—program designed to increase the food purchasing power of low-income
households so that they can buy nutritionally-adequate food. In 2008, approximately 28,408
people participated in the program, each averaging a $101.53 benefit. Total spending was $37.6
million for the year.
Nationally, the participation rate among eligible persons was 67 percent. SNAP is
currently in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Guam. Participating
households receive food benefits, the value of which is determined by household and income.
As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service annually revises household stamp allotments
to reflect changes in the cost of the thrifty food plan.
The program not only assists low-income families obtain nutritious food. It also comes
to the aid of any persons affected by natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Any sort of
natural disaster can leave even the most sufficient and independent household with nothing.
24
Federal Housing Assistance (FHA)—programs fall into one of three categories: rental
housing assistance, federal assistance to state and local governments, and homeownership
assistance. Rental assistance comes primarily in the form of vouchers, federal assistances to
state and local governments comes primarily in the form of block grants the states can use for
rental, homeownership, or community development programs and homeownership assistance
comes primarily in the form of direct assistance to defray homebuilding costs and through
mortgage insurance programs. FHA’s mortgage insurance programs help low and moderate
income families become homeowners by lowering some of the costs of their mortgage loans. In
2007 was $42.2 billion.
Medicaid—Medicaid is a federal-state partnership, created in 1965, which provides
medical care to 46 million low-income individuals. States run their own Medicaid programs,
while Washington sets minimum eligibility and benefit standards and reimburses states for an
average of 57 percent of all program costs. Approximately one-third of Medicaid spending is on
senior citizens, partly because Medicare does not cover most long-term care such as nursing
homes. Overall, Medicaid finances 40 percent of all long-term care costs.30
Spending is expected to reach $336 billion this year, accounting for 22 percent of state
spending and eclipsing overall education spending. An estimated 14 million more people are
currently eligible for Medicaid but are not enrolled.31
Medicaid does not pay money directly to individuals; instead, it sends payments to their
health care provides. Depending on their state’s rules, they may also be asked to pay a small part
of the cost (co-payment) for some medical services.
30
Brian Riede, “A Guide to Fixing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No.
2114, March 11, 2008.
31
Dane Wendell, “Medicaid Spending Surges,” Heartland Institute, June 2007.
25
Medicaid is a state administered program, and each state sets its own guidelines regarding
eligibility and services. Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these
groups, though, certain requirements must be meet. These may include, age, whether one is
pregnant or disabled, one’s income and resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other
items that can be sold for cash) and whether one is a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted
immigrant. The rules for counting income and resources vary from state to state and from group
to group. There are special rules for those who live in nursing homes and for disabled children
living at home. One’s child may be eligible for coverage if he or she is a U.S. citizen or a
lawfully admitted immigrant, even if the parents/guardians are not (however, there is a 5-year
limit that applies to lawful permanent residents). Eligibility for children is based on the child’s
status, not the parent’s.32
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)—began in 1997 to provide
health insurance to children (up to age nineteen)33 and some parents with incomes too high to
qualify for Medicaid, but for whom private health insurance was either unavailable or
unaffordable.34 As of fiscal year 2008, there are 7,368,479 people enrolled in SCHIP.
SCHIP is not available to legal immigrants who entered the country after 1996, except for
in states that use state funds to cover those illegal immigrants that may qualify.
Children enrolled in SCHIP are entitled to regular checkups, immunizations, and doctor’s
visits and hospital care.35
32
“Overview of Medicaid,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/
33
Robert Longley, “Health Insurance for Uninsured Children,” 2008,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/schip.htm
34
“Facts on SCHIP,” Results, www.results.org/website/navdispatch.asp?id=1556
35
“SCHIP Eligibility Fact Sheet,” Health and Human Services, June 2007,
http://www.hhs.gov/news/facts/schip.html
26
Since its enactment, the number of uninsured children living in low-income families
(between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level) fell by 25 percent, according to the
Congressional Budget Office.
The amount of SCHIP funds that states receive from the federal government annually is
determined by a formula based on the number of uninsured, low-income children in the state and
a geographic health care cost factor. For the first 10 years of its existence (1997—2007), SCHIP
cost $40 billion.36
Refugee Assistance—authorized in 1980 by the Refugee Act of 1980, which
standardized the resettlement services for all refugees admitted to the United States. This Act
incorporates the definition of “refugee” used in the U.N. Protocol, and makes provision for
regular flow as well as emergency admission of refugees, and authorizes federal assistance for
the resettlement of refugees. Refugees, asylees, Cuban/Haitian entrants, Amerasians, victims of
human trafficking, unaccompanied alien children, and survivors of torture are eligible for
assistance from the ORR.37 Since 1975, the United States has resettled approximately 2.6
million refugees.38
The Refugee Act provides the legal basis for The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
In 2007, the ORR was allocated $587,847,000 in funds.39
36
“SCHIP Facts,” Easter Seals Disability Services,
http://www.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=OPA_SCHIP_facts
37
“History of the Program,” Office of Refugee Resettlement,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/about/history.htm
38
“Who We Serve,” Office of Refugee Resettlement,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/about/whoweserve.htm
39
“Appropriation of Funds,” Office of Refugee Resettlement,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/funding/appropriations.htm
27
One important program offered by the ORR is the Cash and Medical Assistance (CMA)
Program, which is part of the Division of Refugee Assistance and provides reimbursement to
states and alternative refugee assistance programs for 100 percent of Refugee Cash Assistance
(RCA), Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA), and Unaccompanied Refugee Minors program
services, provided to refugees and other eligible persons.
ORR clients determined ineligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
and Medicaid may be eligible for RCA and RMA for up to eight months from the date of arrival
in the United States, date of final grant for asylum for asylees, and date of certification for
trafficking victims. Refugees may apply for RCA and/or RMA in the State of residence within
eight months from the date of arrival. CMA also reimburses states for medical screening costs
through local public health clinics so that contagious diseases and medical conditions that may
be a barrier to refugees are identified and treated.40
In addition, the Refugee Social Services Program is a part of the Division of Refugee
Assistances. This program supports employability services and other services that address
participants’ barriers to employment such as social adjustment services, interpretation and
translation services, day care for children, citizenship and naturalization services, etc.
Employability services are designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs within one year of
becoming enrolled in services.
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)—
authorized in 1974 to provide nutritious foods, nutrition education and referrals to health and
other social services to participants at no charge. WIC serves low-income pregnant, post partum
and breastfeeding women, and infants and children up to age 5 who are at nutrition risk.
40
“Programs,” Office of Refugee Resettlement
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/programs/cma.htm
28
WIC is not an entitlement program; that is, Congress does not set aside funds to allow
every eligible individual to participate in the program. Instead, WIC is a federal grant program
for which Congress authorizes a specific amount of funding each year for program operations.
The Food and Nutrition Service, which administers the program at the federal level, provides
these funds to WIC state agencies (state health departments or comparable agencies) to pay for
WIC foods, nutrition education, and administrative costs.
Pregnant or postpartum women, infants and children up to age 5 are eligible. They must
meet income guidelines, a state residency requirement, and be individually determined to be at
“nutrition risk” by a health professional. To be eligible on the basis of income, applicants’
income must fall at or below 185 percent of the U.S. poverty Income Guidelines (currently
$35,789 for a family of four). A person who participates or has family members who participate
in certain other benefit programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, Medicaid, or Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, automatically meets the income eligibility requirements.41
In 2007, WIC covered 8,285,000 people and cost $5,413,700,000.42 Of the 7.9 million
people who received WIC benefits each month in FY 2004, approximately 4 million were
children, 2 million were infants and 1.9 million were women.43 WIC serves 45 percent of all
infants born in the United States.
National School Lunch Program—created in 1946 through by the National School
Lunch Act. About 7.1 million children were participating in the National School Lunch Program
by the end of its first year, 1946—47. By 1970, 200 million children were participating, and by
41
“Nutrition Program Facts,” USDAA, 2006, http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf
42
“WIC Program Participation and Cost,” USDAA, 2009, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wisummary.htm
43
“Nutrition Program Facts,” USDAA, 2006, http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf
29
1980 the figure was nearly 27 million. In FY2007, more than 30.5 million children each day got
their lunch through the National School Lunch Program. Since the program began, more than
187 billion lunches have been served.
The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating on
over 101,000 public and non-profit private schools and residential child care institutions. Its goal
is to provide nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to school age children. In 1998,
Congress expanded the National School Lunch Program to include reimbursement for snacks
served to children in afterschool educational and enrichment programs.
The Food and Nutrition Service administers the program at the federal level. At the State
level, the National School Lunch Program is usually administered by state education agencies,
which operate the program through agreements with school food authorities.
Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through the program. Children
from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free
meals. Those with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for
reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. (For the period
July1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, 130 percent of the poverty level is $27,560 for a family of
four; 185 percent is $39,220.)
Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of the poverty level pay a full
price, though their meals are still subsidized to some extent. Local school food authorities set
their own prices for full-price (paid) meals, but must operate their meal services as non-profit
programs.
The National School Lunch Program cost $8.7 billion in FY 2007.
30
Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDF)—the primary federal program
specifically devoted to child care services and quality. It enables low-income parents and
parents receiving TANF to work or to participate in educational or training programs. Funds
may also be used to serve children in protective services. In addition, a portion of CCDF funds
must be used to enhance child care quality and availability.
The component funds of the CCDF were provided under the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). As of October 1, 1996, PRWORA
repealed the old welfare-related child care programs provided under the Social Security Act
(AFDC/JOBS Child Care, Transitional Child Care, and At-Risk Child Care). The repealed
programs were replaced by Mandatory and Matching Funds appropriated for fiscal years 1997—
2002 under a new section of the Social Security act. The Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) renamed the block grant funds provided under the CCDBG Act of 1990, as
amended, the Discretionary Fund, to signify that it must be appropriated annually. PRWORA
required that the new mandatory and matching funds be transferred to a state’s lead agency for
the CCDBG and be administered by that agency, using the provisions of the CCDBG Act, as
amended by PRWORA.
The CCDF made $5 billion available to states in 2008. This program, authorized by
CCDBG assists low-income families, families receiving temporary public assistance, ant those
transitioning from public assistance in obtaining child care so they can work.
Subsidized child care services are available to eligible families through certificates or
contracts with providers. Parents may select any legally operating child care provider. Child
care providers serving children funded by CCDF must meet basic health and safety requirements
set by states. These requirements must address prevention and control of infection diseases,
31
including immunizations, building and physical premises safety and minimum health and safety
training.
Under CCDF, children are eligible for services until they reach 13 years of age. Income
eligibility limits range from 34 percent to 85 percent of the state median income, with the
average income eligibility limit being 60 percent. States differ in their definition of income.
They typically define gross income as both earned and unearned income of the family.
Understanding Poverty and the Role of Social Services
When welfare policy is set by government, politicians invariably search for a single, allencompassing explanation of what the welfare program is all about.44 What follows usually is a
single set of rules that apply to all beneficiaries, regardless of individual attitudes or
circumstances.
Two Views of Poverty. It is in this context that two opposing views of the problem of
poverty persistently clash. One view sees the problem of poverty as a lack of income—caused
by conditions over which low income individuals have no control. The other view sees the
problem of poverty as largely a problem of individual behavior which people, in principle, can
control. In our own day, the former view is forcefully expressed by such scholars as Michael
Harrington, Sir A. Levitan, Clifford M. Johnson, and John E. Schwartz. The latter is expressed
with equal vigor by Warren Brookes, George Gildre and Charles Murray.
The argument that poverty is caused by conditions over which low-income people have
no control is not a new one. Nineteenth Century critics of the Elizabethan Poor Laws, such as
Charles Dickens, Arnold Benet and George Landsbury, repeatedly emphasized this view, and
44
John C. Goodman and Michael D. Stroup, “Privatizing the Welfare State,” Study No. 123, National Center for
Policy Analysis, June 1986.
32
attacked the Poor Law system as inhumane. For example, of a visit to a workhouse for the poor,
Landsbury once wrote:
Going down the narrow road, ringing the bell, waiting while an official with a not-toopleasant face looked through a grating to see who was there, and hearing his unpleasant
voice…made it easy for me to understand why the poor dreaded and hated these
places…It was not necessary to write the words ‘Abandon hope all ye who enter
here’…everything possible was done to inflict mental and moral degradation…of
goodwill, kindliness, there was none.
This view advocates for a more expansive social service system. If individuals cannot
pull themselves out of poverty, the federal government needs to take a larger role.45
On the other hand, there are other prominent people who devoted their lives to improving
the plight of the poor, yet concluded that poverty was mainly the result of individual behavior.
Charles S. Loch, secretary of the Charity Organization Society, one of the most important private
charities in England at the turn of the century, wrote that “Want of employment in nine cases out
of ten in which the plea is used is not the cause of distress. It is, as often as not, drink.” In
Loch’s view, it was important that the conditions under which life was given never be perceived
as more desirable than the last appealing job opportunities in the labor market.
These two opposing views—poverty as the result of conditions over which people have
no control, or poverty as the result of individual choice and behavior—have important
implications for public policy.
In modern times, those who take the bureaucratic approach to the problem tend to define
it in terms of people’s financial condition. Accordingly, the magnitude of the problem is
45
“From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half,” Task Force Report on Poverty, The
Center for American Progress, 2007.
33
“measured” by federal statisticians who attempt to count how many families have incomes which
fall below the official poverty level. The solution to the problem is to give families living in
poverty enough money to raise their income levels above the poverty line.
It follows that the purpose of welfare is quite simple: to give away money. And indeed,
this is an apt way of describing SNAP, TANF and other social services. The bureaucrats who
run these programs are literally in the business of giving away money. By and large, the
program administrators give little thought to making positive changes in the behavior of their
clientele. And, defenders of the programs either minimize or ignore the negative behavioral
consequences these programs create. Thus, Greg Duncan and Richard Coe argue that social
services provided by the federal government act as social safety net, which give relief to people
in need without encouraging long-term dependency.
By contrast, those who take a behavioral approach to the problem of poverty see federal
social services as rewarding bad behavior. Why do we have increasing poverty in America? To
Charles Murray, the answer is straightforward: We have increasing poverty because we are
paying people to be poor.
A Third View of Poverty. Which view is correct? The National Center for Policy
Analysis argues that neither view completely nor accurately describes the poverty crisis. It is
true that some people are poor due to conditions over which they have little or no control. It is
also true that other people are poor by choice. If this is true, federal social services give relief to
people in need, while at the same time encouraging perverse behavior.
In a fascinating study of the poverty population, May Jo Band and David T. Ellwood of
Harvard University found that there are significant differences among poor people with respect
to the reasons why they become poor, how long they remain poor, and why and how they cease
34
being poor. It is precisely because of these differences that there are so many statistical
generalizations about the poverty population which are seemingly contradictory.
By way of analogy, Bane and Ellwood compare the poverty population to patients in a
hospital. Looking at hospital admissions, one will see that the vast majority of people admitted
into hospitals stay there only short periods of time. Based on that observation, one might be
tempted to conclude that there is no real problem of long-term hospitalization. That conclusion
is wrong, however. Looking at the patients occupying hospital beds, on any given day, one will
see that a large portion of those beds are filled with the chronically ill, whose hospital stays are
very long. In other words the chronically ill account for a small fraction of hospital admissions,
but they occupy a large fraction of hospital beds.
A similar observation may be made about the “admission rate” of (non-elderly) poor
people to the welfare rolls:

Among people who become poor at any point in time, 45 percent will be out of
poverty within one year.

Seventy percent will be out of poverty within three years.

Only 12 percent will remain in poverty for ten years or more.
Statistics such as these are frequently quotes by apologists for the welfare state. Yet they
are misleading, just as in the case of the chronically ill who fill a large portion of hospital beds.

Among people who are currently poor, more than half will remain in poverty for 10
years or more.

The average black child in poverty today will remain in poverty for almost two
decades.
35
Bane and Ellwood also discovered that even among the short-term poor, there are radical
differences in the reasons for their poverty and in the methods that are used to get out of poverty.
In their own words, “The poverty population is extremely heterogeneous.”
These difference are important. Continuing with the hospital analogy, no one in his right
mind would recommend that the chronically ill be given the same medical treatment as the shortstay patient, or that all short-stay patients can be diagnosed and treated in the same way,
regardless of medical condition. Yet this is precisely the way the federal government
administers their social service programs.
Affirmative Case Areas
Affirmative cases on this year’s topic will cover a large number of issues. We have
organized potential cases into four categories: service focused cases, target population cases,
harms focused cases and reform cases.
Service Focused Cases. Service focused cases will focus on a particular social service,
expanding an existing one or creating a new one. The advantages that can follow these types of
cases may be numerous and interchangeable. There will be an enormous variety of these cases.
The following are examples of service focused cases that might be run this year.
SCHIP. Even with the existence of SCHIP, millions of children remain uninsured. In
early February 2009, SCHIP was expanded to cover another 4 million children each year. This
means a total of 11 million children are eligible to be ensured under SCHIP.46 Even with this
expansion, 5.6 million uninsured children will remain ineligible for SCHIP. The All Healthy
Children Act of 2009 (H.R. 747) is a bill designed to ensure that all of these children and all of
the pregnant women in the United States will have comprehensive health care coverage
46
Noam Levey, “Obama Signs Children’s Healthcare Bill,” The Boston Globe, February 5, 2009.
36
equivalent to current Medicaid benefits.47 Under the bill, all children whose family incomes are
at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level and all pregnant women at or below 300
percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for the program. Affirmatives that run this
plan may use several different advantages. They can claim that increases those covered by
SCHIP will lead to better health outcomes. 48
The American College of Physicians argues that
while there is great admiration throughout the world for the advancements of American
medicine, these benefits are only available to those with health insurance. According to them,
health care systems that leave many uninsured will undoubtedly have poorer medical outcomes.
Another advantage may be that the increased availability of preventive care can decrease overall
costs. If health care were free or provided at a low cost, more individuals would readily seek
preventive services and money would be saved when doctors catch conditions in their early
stages before they develop into more costly to treat diseases.49
Negatives may argue that a further expansion of SCHIP would be very costly and would
mainly buy insurance for children who are already insured.50 In fact, the families of millions of
children currently in SCHIP would have otherwise had private coverage, and most of the
children that would be newly eligible already have private coverage. Furthermore, the cost of
expansion would be borne by poor families and seniors.
Most uninsured children are already eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid. More than 8
million children lack coverage at some point during the year, and it is estimated that about 70
47
“The All Healthy Children’s Act Fact Sheet,” Children’s Defense Fund, 2008.
48
“No Health Insurance? It’s Enough to Make You Sick—Scientific Research Linking the Lack of Coverage to Poor
Health,” American College of Physicians, January 2000. http://www.acponline.org/uninsured/lack-exec.htm
49
The Physicians’ Working Group for Single Payer National Health Insurance, “Proposal of the Physicans’ Working
Group for Single Payer Health Insurance,” Journal of the American Medical Association, (2003) 290:798-805.
50
Devon Herrick and Matt Baumann, “SCHIP Expansion: Robin Hood in Reverse,” Brief Analysis No. 589, National
Center for Policy Analysis, July 31, 2007.
37
percent of these may qualify for public coverage. However, the duration of uninsured spells tend
to be short, and only 4.9 million children are uninsured for the entire year. According to the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), of the children who are uninsured for an entire year:

More than one million children currently qualify for public coverage but are not
enrolled.

Another 1.1 million do not qualify because they are illegal (or temporary)
immigrants.

About 403,000 are income-eligible immigrants who have not been legal residents
long enough to qualify for Medicaid benefits.
SCHIP expansion would do nothing to increase enrollment among children who are
already eligible, and most of the additional children are already covered by private insurance.
In addition, virtually everyone agrees that expanding “free” (or highly subsidized) public
insurance crowds out private insurance. Gruber estimates that much of the new SCHIP funds
will go to families who would otherwise have private coverage:

In families earning 200 percent to 300 percent of the poverty-level income, 77 percent
of children already have private coverage, according to the CBO.

In families earning 300 percent to 400 percent of poverty, 90 percent of children are
already covered by private health insurance.
The parents of children targeted for expansion have shown they want insurance coverage
for their children badly enough to pay for it. On the other hand, since millions of uninsured
children who already qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP have not enrolled, it is entirely possible
most of the new spending will replace existing private coverage.
38
In addition, negative debaters can argue that the affirmative plan may lead to less health
care coverage for children. When their parents trade “free” coverage for private coverage,
millions of children will have less access to care. The reason: Most SCHIP patients have less
access than privately insured patients because the programs pay doctors the same, low
reimbursements rates as Medicaid pays. A recent study found that two-thirds of Medicaid
patients are unable to obtain an appointment for urgent ambulatory care, and in three-fourths of
the cases, the reason is that the provider does not accept Medicaid. SCHIP enrollees face similar
problems accessing care.
Make the Savers Tax Credit Refundable.
The Savers Tax Credit, enacted in 2001, is a
nonrefundable tax credit for contributions to retirement accounts.51 Because it is nonrefundable,
it provides no benefits to households that owe no federal income tax. Affirmatives may argue
that the tax credit is ineffective because it does not help the people who need it most: people
living in poverty who are unlikely to owe federal income tax. An affirmative plan on this year’s
topic may make the Savers Tax Credit refundable, meaning individuals and families could get a
refund for saving for retirement even if they had no federal tax liability. Advantages may
include incentivizing retirement savings and decreasing poverty.
Expand Medicaid. Medicaid provides health care coverage for low income U.S. citizens.
Having a limited income is one requirement, but in order to be covered by Medicaid individuals
must fit into one of the designated eligibility groups. Under currently law only pregnant women,
individuals with disabilities, those who care for a dependent child and those older than age 65
qualify for Medicaid. Affirmatives may claim that low income adults who do not qualify for
51
William Gale, Mark Ivy and Peter Orszag, “The Savers’ Credit: Expanding Retirement Savings for Middle and
Lower Income Americans,” The Retirement Security Project, March 2005.
39
Medicaid account for more than half of U.S. residents without health insurance52 and develop a
case that make more low income adults eligible for Medicaid. One affirmative plan could
establish a new Medicaid eligibility category that would include adults with incomes less than a
certain level. Advantage could include better health outcomes, decreasing costs by increasing
preventive care, and fulfilling a right to health care, among others.
The negative can make numerous arguments against an affirmative case that expands
Medicaid.53 Medicaid was intended to improve access to medical care and thereby the health of
the indigent. Arguably, it has done neither. And as the program has expanded to cover
additional populations, including the near poor and even middle-class individuals, the evidence
suggests that it is displacing, or even, crowding out, private health insurance coverage.
It is commonly assumed that Medicaid enrollees have greater access to health care than if
they were uninsured; however, the evidence is mixed. Most enrollees rely on the same public
and not-for-profit hospitals and clinics that have always provided a health care safety net for the
poor.54 Medicaid is the primary social safety net for indigent health care—but not the only one.
For example, community health clinics and hospital emergency rooms are often providers of last
resort. The existence of this free care (charity care) often makes people eligible for Medicaid
feel that enrollment is unnecessary. Free care, in other words, appears to be a substitute for
Medicaid.
52
“Panel Discusses Proposals to Expand to Cover More Low-Income Adults,” Medical News Today, September 17,
2008.
53
John C. Goodman, Michael Bond, Devon Herrick, and Pamela Villarreal, “Opportunities for State Medicaid
Reform,” Policy Report No. 288, National Center for Policy Analysis.
54
John K. Iglehart, “The American Health System-Medicaid,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 340, No. 9,
February, 4, 1999.
40
In fact, where Medicaid spending is low, spending on free care is high—and vice versa.
For example, an NCPA analysis of health regions in Texas found that the area with the highest
average Medicaid cost per enrollee spent more than twice as much as the area with the lowest
average cost.55 But it found that adding spending on free care to Medicaid spending cuts the
variation in regional health care expenditures in half. In other words, free care substitutes for
Medicaid spending.
A recent RAND Corporation study found that among Medicaid enrollees and uninsured
individuals who sought care, Medicaid patients received the same quality of health care as the
uninsured. Furthermore, the quality of health care received by the poor was only slightly less
than for higher income groups.56
In addition, expanding Medicare will have a negative impact on access to private health
insurance. Many assume Medicaid insures people who otherwise would not have access to
private insurance.57 However, Medicaid also induces some people to drop their private coverage
in order to take advantage of free health insurance offered by the state. As a result of such
crowding out, the cost of expanding public insurance programs has been high relative to the gain.
For example, if for each new enrollee in a public program at least one person forgoes private
insurance, there will be no net reduction in the number of uninsured, despite the higher taxpayer
burden. If for every two new enrollees in the public program on person loses private insurance,
the net cost to taxpayers for each newly insured person doubles.
55
Sen. Chris Harris and the Members of the Texas Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Uninsured, “Texas Blue Ribbon
Task Force on the Uninsured,” Report to the 77th Legislature, State of Texas, February 2001.
56
Steven M. Asch et al., “Who Is at Greatest Risk for Receiving Poor-Quality Health Care?” New England Journal of
Medicine, Vol. 354, No. 11, March 16, 2006.
57
George Borjas, “Welfare Reform, Labor Supply, and Health Insurance in the Immigrant Population,” Journal of
Health Economics, Vol. 22, No. 6, November 2003.
41
Economists David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber found that Medicaid expansions in the
early 1990s were substantially offset by reductions in private coverage.58 For every additional
dollar spent on Medicaid, private-sector health care spending was reduced by 50 cents to 75
cents on the average. Thus taxpayers incurred a considerable burden, but at least half, and
perhaps as much as three-fourths, of the expenditures replaced private-sector spending, rather
than buying more or better medical services.
Also, Medicaid coverage does not necessarily improve health outcomes. An oft-cited
argument for Medicaid is that making health care virtually free at the point of consumption
encourages preventive care and improves health outcomes. This could potentially reduce
overall, long-term health care costs. Unfortunately, there is little evidence this occurs. Studies
suggest explicit attempts to encourage the use of preventive care by Medicaid beneficiaries are
generally unsuccessful. For example, one study found that outreach programs in North Carolina
had a very small impact on utilization. Another study found that receiving Medicaid benefits for
a year increased the probability children would receive checkups by only 17 percent. The
researchers concluded that “factors other than insurance and income, such as the low educational
attainment of low-income mothers, explain approximately 80 percent of the gap between lowincome and other children in their well-child visits.” Additionally, there is no evidence that
becoming eligible for Medicaid significantly improves child immunization rates.
However, analyzing the use of Medicaid services tell us only about inputs, not outcomes
such as health improvement. The evidence of Medicaid’s effect on health is conflicting. For
example, Medicaid eligibility is somewhat associated with a lower risk of infant mortality. And
University of Washington researchers found some evidence that Medicaid enrollment decreases
58
David M. Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, “Does Public Insurance Crowd Out Private Insurance?” Quarterly Journal
of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2, 1996.
42
low-weight births for medically high-risk women. Studies in other states, however, have found
Medicaid expansion had little effect on prenatal care and outcomes.59
Target Population Cases. Another set of affirmative cases will focus on specific groups
such as children, African Americans, the homeless, former prisoners, or refugees.60 Affirmatives
may argue that these specific groups are more affected by poverty than other groups:61

18 percent of children live in poverty compared with 10 percent of adults ages 18—
64.

24.5 percent of Blacks live in poverty compared with 8.2 percent of non-Hispanic
Whites.

28.3 percent of single-parent families headed by women live in poverty compared
with 4.9 percent of two-parent families.
Affirmatives may also choose a specific group, not because it is more affected by
poverty, but to avoid a state counterplan. Cases that focus on Native Americans, veterans or
other groups that the federal government has jurisdiction over are strategic because they are less
vulnerable to arguments that the state should enact the plan instead of the federal government.
The federal government alone has the authority to regulate such groups.
The follow are examples of target population cases that might be used on this year’s
topic:
Single Parents. A growing number of single parents with children are in the workforce
and require child care and after-school care. The cost of child care is a significant part of a
59
Janet Currie and Jonathan Gruber, “Health Insurance Eligibility, Utilization of Medical Care, and Child Health,,”
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2, May 1996.
60
“Poverty in America,” Government Accountability Office, 2007.
61
“Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States in 2007,” U.S. Census Bureau, August
2008.
43
family’s budget. One out of three single parents with young children earns less than $25,000 a
year. Yet, full-day child care can cost anywhere from $4,000 to $10,000 and up per year.
Affirmatives can argue that the availability of subsidies for low-income single mothers for child
care is inadequate to ensure that children have access to child care.62 One affirmative plan may
increase the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) that helps low-income families
obtain child care. Advantages may include increasing the ability of single parents to work and
transition out of poverty.
Negatives may argue that government involvement in child care will do anything but help
single parents. According to some scholars, government is the cause of many of the problems
parents face, including arbitrary, cost-increasing regulations at the local level and discriminatory
tax laws at the federal level.63 Government subsidies to state regulators are virtually guaranteed
to beget more regulation. State regulators, given the proclivities of those most active in pushing
for such subsidies, would likely require credentials for day-care providers, a minimum number of
providers per number of children and particular arrangements and uses of space. All three would
increase the cost of day care.
Studies have found that day-care regulations reduce the supply of family day-care homes.
For example, a 1995 Brookings Institution study by William T. Gormley found:

The growth rate of licensed day-care homes in Missouri slowed after the state
implemented new training, safety and health requirements for family day-care homes
in October 1991—and added rules on pets, field trips, nutrition and transportation.
62
“Child Care and Development Block Grant,” National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2008.
63
David Henderson, “Day Care: Children vs. Government,” Brief Analysis No. 248, National Center for Policy
Analysis, November 1997.
44

When California imposed a state licensing fee on child-care facilities in September
1992, the number of licensed family day-care homes declined by almost 1,500.

After Texas introduced training and inspection requirements in July 1990, the number
of registered family day-care homes in Houston declined by 35.
Native Americans. According to the U.S. Census, a quarter of Native Americans live in
poverty. Many scholars have noted that a high rate (nearly 50 percent) of students dropping out
of high school before they graduate contributes to a cycle that keeps many Native Americans in
poverty. An affirmative case designed to combat this cycle may set up programs for high school
students to decrease dropout rates. One such proposal by Alan Khazei and Brittny Saunders
from the Be the Change Institute are Youth Engagement Zones. These are coordinated school
and community based service-learning opportunities to reach students at risk of dropping out.64
Harms Focused Cases. The third type of case you are likely to hear this hear this year
are cases we label “harms focused.” These are cases that will focus heavily on a particular
advantage such as stopping smoking or preventing the spread of a communicable disease such as
HIV/AIDS. While all cases need harms, these cases are centered around the harms and may
require numerous social services to solve the harm.
Smoking. A case designed to decrease smoking prevalence will focus on the harms of
smoking and second hand smoke: lung cancer, emphysema and death. The plan may have a
numerous steps such as an aggressive anti-tobacco campaign that focuses on the lies of the
industry, the dangers of second hand smoke and the dangers of nicotine addiction. The case may
also create programs in homeless shelters to encourage people to quit smoking and provide
support to those who are quitting.
64
Alan Khazei and Brittny Saunders, “Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity,” s009.
45
HIV. Other cases may seek to stop the spread of communicable diseases such as HIV.
An affirmative case designed to combat the spread of aids may do a combination of several
things such as overturn the federal ban on needle exchange so that homeless shelters can provide
this service and increase educational literature to people visiting free clinics to enhance
knowledge about how to avoid contracting HIV.
Reform Cases. The final category of affirmative cases is reform cases. These cases
change something about the current system instead of merely increasing the programs or creating
a new program. Reform cases change the something about the current system to increase social
services. A taxpayer choice plan is an excellent example of a reform case.
Taxpayer Choice. One alternative to a system where government provides social services
has been termed: taxpayer choice. Is there a reason that government should dispense social
services in the first place? The traditional economic argument is that spending money to relieve
poverty has beneficial social effects beyond the interest of individual givers. In addition, given
freedom of choice, some people will try to become “free riders” on the charitable gifts of others
and fail to contribute their “fair share.”
However, it does not follow from a requirement to contribute to charity that the
government should nationalize the charity industry. Government requires licensed drivers to
carry automobile liability insurance, but few would argue that it should nationalize auto
insurance.
The basic idea of taxpayer choice is simple: Government would continue to force people
to give their “fair share” through income taxes. However, individual taxpayers rather than
politicians would be able to allocate their welfare tax dollars to any qualified charity—public or
private. Private charities would compete on an equal footing with government welfare programs
46
for welfare tax dollars, and the market would be free and open. Anyone could start a private
charity and qualify for “tax dollar contributions,” provided the charity had a social welfare
purpose and satisfied certain other minimal requirements.
When taxpayers donated to a qualified charity, they would be permitted to claim a credit
on their federal income tax returns. Each dollar donation would reduce a taxpayer’s tax liability
by one dollar. The taxpayer choice plan is revenue neutral. All tax credits would be exactly
offset by reductions in block grants or matching fund payments to the states in which the
taxpayers reside.
Currently the private sector plays an important role in helping people who live in
poverty:65

In 2006, total charitable contributions reached $295 billion, with contributions by
individuals accounting for 83.3 percent of that total.

About 61.8 million people, or 26.4 percent of the population, volunteered at least
once between September 2007 and September 2008.

If the value of volunteer labor is included, private sector contributions to charitable
cause are approximately the same as the poverty budgets of federal, state and local
governments combined.
There is mounting evidence that the private sector does a better job of getting aid
promptly to those who need it most, encouraging self-sufficiency self-reliance, preserving the
family unit and using resources efficiently. When spending decisions are made through the
political process, powerful special interests invariably influence how the dollars are spent. It is
no accident that more than two-thirds of federal welfare spending ends up in the pockets of
65
John Goodman, Gerald Reed, Peter Ferrara, “Why Not Abolish the Welfare State?” Study No. 187, National
Center for Policy Analysis, October 1994 and “ Charitable Donations by Americans Reach Record High,”
America.gov, June 2007.
47
people who are distinctly not poor. Further since the public welfare monopoly faces no
marketplace competition, it can spend money in wasteful and inefficient ways, fail miserably to
achieve its objectives and generally misbehave without fear of losing customers to a competitor.
In addition, entitlement programs for welfare are structured so that benefits are granted
solely on the basis of personal circumstances. Applicants do not have to give the reasons for
their circumstances or explain how they plan to change them in the future. They don’t even have
to show a willingness to change. The word entitlement means “right”—benefits cannot be
withdrawn simply because recipients refuse to modify their behavior.
The philosophy of the private sector is quite different. The best private charities do not
view the giving of assistance as a “duty” or the receipt of assistance as a “right.” Instead, they
view charitable assistance as a tool recipients can use intelligently, not only to gain relief but also
to change behavior. For example, at many private charities the level of assistance varies
considerably from individual to individual. Private agencies usually reserve the right to reduce
assistance or withdraw it altogether if recipients do not make behavioral changes.
Many private charities require that a caseworker and an aid recipient develop a plan to
move the recipient into self-sufficiency. For example:

At Jessie’s House, a transitional home for the homeless in Hampton, Massachusetts,
shelter beyond one week is contingent upon positive evidence of individual
improvement.

At the Dallas Salvation Army, aid varies according to the caseworker’s evaluation of
the recipient’s condition and record of behavioral improvement.
Under entitlement programs, recipients and potential recipients of aid have full freedom
to exercise their preferences. In many cases, they choose poverty and, in effect, present the rest
48
of us with a bill for social services. Thus, the preferences of public social service recipients
determine the behavior of those who pay the bills.
The philosophy of the private sector is quite different. In general, private agencies allow
those who pay the bills to set the standards and expect recipients to change their behavior
accordingly. In other words, recipients of private sector services must adjust their behavior to
the preferences of the rest of society, not the other way around.
Another reason private charity is preferable to government-provided social services is
because of private charity’s “hands-on” management. If we accept the view that individuals
should take responsibility for supporting themselves and their families and that social services
should be administered in a way that encourages this behavior, it follows that the approach of our
best private charities is far superior to that of entitlement programs. Because individuals and
individual circumstances differ, it is only through hands-on management that we can give relief
without encouraging antisocial behavior.
Hands-on management includes the tailoring of aid to individual needs and individual
circumstances. Such support, counseling and follow-up is virtually unheard of in federal welfare
programs. Indeed, when public welfare recipients request counseling, they frequently are
referred to private sector agencies.
Finally, government provided social services are failing to reach those who need them
most. Private charities are more effective. If a humane welfare system means anything at all, it
means getting aid first to people who need it most. One of the most astonishing and least-known
facts about government social service programs is how much they fail to achieve this goal.
Consider that:
49

Only 41 percent of all poverty families receive food stamps; yet 28 percent of all
food-stamp families have incomes above the poverty line.

Only 23 percent of all poverty families living in public housing or receive housing
subsidies; yet almost half of the families receiving housing benefits are not poor.

Only 40 percent of all poverty families are covered by Medicaid; yet 40 percent of all
Medicaid beneficiaries are not poor.

Amazingly, 41 percent of all poverty families receive no means-tested benefits of any
kind from government; yet more than half of all families who do receive at least one
means-tested benefit are not poor.
Where do people in need turn for help when they aren’t getting government assistance?
They turn to private charities.

94 percent of all shelters for the homeless in the United States are operated by
churches, synagogues, secular groups and other voluntary organizations.

A study in Detroit found that 80 percent of low-income people, when faced with a
crisis, turned to neighborhood individuals and agencies rather than to government
agencies for help.

Similar findings were reported in a study conducted by the University of Southern
California.
In addition, private charities reduce the risk of dependency by giving mostly short term
help. A prevalent philosophy in the private sector is that most people are fully capable of taking
responsibility for their lives in the long term, but that emergencies and crises occur for which
help is both necessary and desirable. As a consequence, private sector agencies make it
50
surprisingly easy for recipients to obtain emergency relief. It really is true that, in America,
almost anybody can get a free lunch.
The near-universal characteristic of private sector charity is that it’s easy to get, but hard
to keep. Most government programs, by contrast, that the opposite characteristic: it’s hard to get
on welfare, but easy to stay there. In the public sector, there are often long waiting times
between applying for assistance and receiving aid. Once accepted into the public welfare
system, however, people find it relatively easy to stay there for a long time.
Finally, there is considerably evidence that private sector charity makes for more efficient
use of resources than do public welfare programs. Although temporary relief in the form of food
or shelter is fairly easy to obtain from private agencies, long-term assistance or assistance in the
form of cash is far more difficult. For example:

Before the Dallas Salvation Army will provide cash to help people defray the cost of
rent, recipients must present a court-ordered eviction notice showing failure to pay
rent.

Similarly, before the charity will give financial aid to defray the costs of utilities, the
recipient must present a notice of termination of service for failure to pay utility bills.
Even when there is evidence of need, good private charities often seek to determine
whether the potential recipient has access to other, untapped sources of assistance. For example:

Before the Dallas Salvation Army will provide continuing assistance to an individual,
a caseworker informs the family—including in-laws—and request assistance from
them first.

The caseworker also makes sure the individual applies for all other public and aid for
which he or she is eligible.
51
Private sector agencies appear to be much more adept at avoiding unnecessary spending
that does not benefit the truly needy and at keeping program costs down by utilizing volunteer
labor and donated goods.
If taxpayers have the right to decide how welfare tax dollars will be spent, how much
should they be allowed to allocate? In general, each taxpayer’s share could be calculated by
dividing the total federal welfare spending by total personal income tax payments in each state to
obtain the fraction of personal federal income taxes taxpayers should be free to allocate.
In 1994, federal personal income taxes amounted to $543 billion. The federal
government spent about $168 billion on means-tested programs other than Medicaid, or about 31
percent of all personal income taxes. Thus if this proposal were fully implemented, individuals
in the average state could have allocated up to 31 percent of their personal federal income taxes
to qualified private charities, an amount equal to about $1,600 per year per household. If the
state government share of the nation’s welfare bill were included, taxpayers could allocate about
40 percent of their tax bill (about $2,100 per household) to private charity.
Bills before Congress don’t go quite that far. One by Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) would
allow a maximum of $500 per taxpayer ($1,000 per couple). Another by Representatives Jim
Kolbe (R-AZ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) would limit the amount to $100. Yet these bills are a
step in the right direction.
What organizations would be allowed to receive welfare tax dollars? Most nonprofit
organizations (to which people currently can make tax-deductive donations) are classified as
501(c)(3) organizations under the Internal Revenue Service code. These organizations may
engage in research, the promotion of art and other activities far beyond the scope of what would
be allowed under the taxpayer choice plan.
52
To implement taxpayer choice, we need a narrower designation—call it 501 (c)(3)(+)—
for organizations that provide relief and other services to the poor. Organizations with a broader
mission such as churches and colleges could for a 501(c)(3)(+) subsidiary. The goal would be to
define a “qualified charity” and to assure that all taxpayer choice donations went to traditional
welfare activities. Internal Revenue Service scrutiny would be maintained.
The theory behind taxpayer choice is that individuals are required to devote a percent of
their income to the relief of poverty, but they can choose the receiving organization. In other
words, government chooses the amount that must be given; taxpayers choose the recipient. The
result will be a massive shift of funds from government programs that do more harm than good
to privet-sector programs that actually work.
Enterprise Programs. The enterprise programs affirmative argues that excess
regulations price poor people out of the market for essential services and has the federal
government change regulatory law related to these services.66 Like other Americans, those
living in poverty need transportation, housing, medical care, education and so forth. But unlike
the rest of us, when it comes to such services, low-income families everywhere are often illserved. Many times bureaucratic obstacles and regulations price poor people out of the market
for essential services.
Middle-class families generally expect to meet their needs through the marketplace.
They buy and rent housing in the real estate market. When they aren’t driving their own cars,
they buy transportation services from taxicab and limo companies. They buy health insurance
and choose their doctors in the medical marketplace.
66
John Goodman, “Aid to Katrina Victims: A Right/Left Consensus,” Brief Analysis No. 529, National Center for
Policy Analysis, September 2005.
53
For most poor families, the experience is completely different. Regulations designed to
protect entrenched special interests have succeeded in raising the costs of these services so that
the poor have been priced out of the market. So instead of buying housing in the real estate
market, far too many poor families have to rely on public housing. Instead of purchasing basic
medical care the way middle-income families do, they have to rely on government-provided
care. Instead of paying for a taxi, they must depend on public transportation.
In sort, middle-class and poor communities differ not just by income. For the middle
class, essential needs are met in the marketplace and they benefit from the customer-pleasing
innovations that competition produces. The poor, by contrast, must instead rely on public
programs with all of the customer-pleasing attributes of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The idea of an “enterprise zone” is a simple one. Carve out a geographic sector and
declare that within that zone, economically unjustified regulations do not apply. The hope is that
businesses will open, jobs will be created and private investment will flow into depressed and
blighted areas.
Good as this idea is, it is too confiding. You cannot benefit from an enterprise zone
unless you live in one. Hence we need a related idea developed by scholars at the National
Center for Policy Analysis. It’s called “enterprise programs.” Whereas enterprise zones are
geographically fixed, enterprise programs are not. To qualify for an enterprise program, a
producer/sell/entrepreneur need only meet one requirement: provide an essential service to poor
and distressed families. Following are four examples of opportunities:
Transportation. People living in poverty need to travel to get groceries, find housing and
interview for jobs. So why aren’t budding entrepreneurs showing up in their minivans and SUVs
to make a few bucks by taking people where they need to go?
54
Answer: in almost every city, that’s against the law. These laws are not there to protect
the riding public, however. They are there to protect taxicab companies. With an enterprise
program, any willing seller could offer rides to any willing buyer.
Medical Care. Numerous studies have shown that nurses, physician’s assistants and
paramedics can deliver high quality primary care and pass patients with complicated problems
on to physicians when needed. Yet antiquated state laws all too often stand in the way.
Ironically, paramedics who patch up soldiers in Iraq would be breaking the law if they did the
same thing for Katrina victims.
These medical practice statues aren’t protecting patients. They are protecting members
of the medical profession. In some parts of the country, “minute clinics” in shopping malls allow
nurse to give flu shots, take temperature, prescribe antibiotics and deliver other timely,
inexpensive care.
Housing. Custom homes are the most expensive to build. Modular homes built in a
factory and assembled on-site are lower-cost alternative. Yet in many cities, modular homes
have been barred from the market by zoning laws and building codes. However, such
regulations are there to protect real estate interests, not consumers.
In general, factory-built homes can be every bit as strong and well built as site-built
homes, and can be constructed in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the price. Modular
homes must pass rigorous standards and inspections to satisfy strict federal safety requirements.
Under an enterprise program, low-income families would have access to this promising market.
Child Care. Government regulation causes the number of registered family day-care
homes to fall because it is burdensome and increases daycare costs. One study found that
55
regulation in Milwaukee County, Wis., imposed home improvement costs averaging $936 per
provider.
Although ostensibly designed to protect children, many regulations do nothing of the sort.
To the extent that regulations raise costs without increasing quality, they encourage parents and
providers to make illegal arrangements. For example, in DeKalb County, Ga., an informal study
found that eight of 10 family day-care providers simply ignored the requirement for a zoning
permit. But underground day care almost by definition is more difficult for parents (and public
officials) to monitor.
Local governments often prohibit day care altogether. As Gormley notes in an article in
the Brookings Review:

In Shorewood, Wis., a suburb of Milwaukee, zoning laws prohibit group daycare
centers in commercial buildings.

In Clifton, N.J., family day care homes in residential neighborhoods are illegal.

In Tallahassee, Fla., family day care homes with more than two children are illegal.
Even where day care is permitted, local governments often inhibit it through zoning
restrictions that extend even to licensed family day care homes with six or fewer children. In
DeKalb County, according to Gormey, a family day care provider who wishes to care for just
one child must get a zoning permit, which requires inspections by a building inspector, an
electrical inspector and a plumbing inspector.
Government regulation tends to lead to one-size-fits-all child care by reducing the
number of available options. Further, it tends to lead to unnecessary, often counterproductive,
rules and restrictions. The larger the government’s role in funding child care, the weaker the
parent’s role. When parents pay for their own day care, the providers must be accountable to
56
parents. When governments pay for day care, the providers must be accountable to
governments. Parents are much more capable than regulators of evaluating day care facilities
and choosing those that fit their needs and budgets. One parents of each child sees a day-care
facility twice a day; government officials see each facility at most a few times a year.
Major Negative Arguments
The following is a list of major negative arguments you are likely to see this year.
Topicality: Poverty. The negative team can make the argument that most people
considered “poor” by the affirmative definition are actually not poor. As debates on this topic
get underway, you will undoubtedly hear dire statistics about the percentage of people living in
poverty. You should consider though, that even those on welfare have extraordinary access to
conveniences, labor-saving devices and even luxury goods.67 For example:68
 43 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home
owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house
with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36
percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
 The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living
in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These
comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as
poor.)
67
Bruce Bartlett, “How Poor Are the Poor?” Brief Analysis No. 185, National Center for Policy Analysis, 1995.
68
Robert Rector, “How Poor Are America’s Poor? Examining the Plague of Poverty in America,” Backgrounder
2064, Heritage Foundation, August 27, 2007.
57
 Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more
cars.
 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more
color televisions.
 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV
reception.
 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third
have an automatic dishwasher.
Negatives can use these claims to argue that the affirmative is extra-topical because they
help people who are not living in poverty.
Solvency Takeout: Extent of Poverty. You can use the same arguments to make a
solvency attack against the affirmative. Negatives can claim that people living in poverty are not
living in destitution and, therefore, the affirmative plan does not solve for poverty.
Private Action Counterplan. As the negative you can argue that government action
fails. Instead, we should rely on the private sector to provide social services to those living in
poverty. See pages 47—52 for more information.
Spending Disadvantage. The negative can argue that the affirmative’s plan to expand
social services is too expensive and will crowd out more important programs. The negative can
easily run a Spending Disadvantage against a case that expands Medicaid.69 Medicaid is the
largest single expenditure by state governments today. Health care costs have risen rapidly over
the past decade, and the states as a whole now spend more on Medicaid than they spend on
primary and secondary education. Medicaid and other health expenses account for one in every
69
John C. Goodman, Michael Bond, Devon Herrick, Pamela Villarreal, “Opportunities for State Medicaid Reform,”
Policy Report No. 288, National Center for Policy Analysis, September 2006.
58
five dollars of state spending. At the rate the program is growing, it is on a course to consume
the entire budgets of state government in just a few decades. Negatives can argue that
restraining the growth of Medicaid spending is a fiscal imperative.
State Counterplan. With a State Counterplan the negative can concede that social
services need to be expanded, but that the 50 states, not the federal government should expand
them for several reasons. First, the negative can run a politics disadvantage that links to the
federal government and not state governments. Second, the negative can argue that the states
can innovate and do what is best for their particular population better than the federal
government.70 The poverty population of one area can differ in remarkable ways from the
poverty population of another. Even within a state, the response of one group can differ
remarkably from the response of another. Carried to its logical conclusion, the point is: within
the poverty population there are remarkable differences among individuals, with respect to their
circumstances and their personal responses to incentives. These two findings have devastating
implications for policymakers. What the findings means is that it is almost impossible to design,
at the federal level, a welfare system that accomplishes what most people want from a public
charity. The negative can argue that we should give the states the maximum flexibility to design
and implement their own social service system. The federal government should not impose a
one-size fits all program.
Capitalism. Negative teams that are interested in critical arguments may run a critique
of the capitalist system. Teams can argue that the root of the problem of poverty is capitalism
and the affirmative merely provides a band-aid solution. We need an entirely new system.
70
John Goodman, Gerald Reed, Peter Ferrara, “Why Not Abolish the Welfare State?” Study No. 187, National
Center for Policy Analysis, October 1994.
59
Dependency Disadvantage. The negative can argue that expanding government
provided social services, especially the kind that require no behavior-modification from the
recipients, may lead to a rapid growth of dependency. Negatives can argue that this may cause a
change in the nature of U.S. democracy and lead to an ever-expanding state.71 A major issue in
the social services-poverty industry is whether the recipient of aid should have to “do anything”
in order to continue receiving social services.72 Nowhere is the controversy more evident than
with respect to workfare. The negative can argue that recipients should be required to make
changes in their behavior to remain eligible for certain social services. Negatives can argue that
independence and self-sufficiency should be the primary goals of social service programs.
Waste/Fraud Disadvantage. Negatives can argue that federal social service programs
are not working because of large incidences of waste and fraud. Since the public welfare
monopoly faces no marketplace competition, it can spend money in wasteful and inefficient
ways, fail miserably to achieve its objectives and generally misbehave without fear of losing
customers to a competitor.73 According to a Census Bureau report:

Only 43 percent of all poor families receive food stamps, and 23 percent of foodstamp families have incomes above the poverty level.

Only 19 percent of all poor families live in public housing or receive housing
subsidies, and 40 percent of the families receiving housing benefits are not poor.

Only 41 percent of all poor families are covered by Medicaid, and 35 percent of all
Medicaid beneficiaries are not poor.
71
William Beach, “The 2008 Index of Government Dependency,” Heritage Foundation, October 23, 2008.
72
John Goodman, Gerald Reed, Peter Ferrara, “Why Not Abolish the Welfare State?” Study No. 187, National
Center for Policy Analysis, October 1994.
73
John C. Goodman, “Taxpayer Choice,” Brief Analysis No. 206, National Center for Policy Analysis, June 1996.
60

Amazingly, 46 percent of all poor families receive no means-tested benefit of any
kind from government, while 40 percent of all families who receive at least one
means-tested benefit are not poor.
Medicaid fraud and abuse may consume as much as $1 of every $10 nationwide,
according to the Government Accountability Office, and more than $1 of every $5 in New York
Medicaid, according to one estimate.74 A New York Times investigation found massive provider
fraud in New York City, including a dentist who claimed to have performed nearly 1,000
procedures in a single day and 9,500 procedures in one month.
Disincentive to Work and Save Disadvantage. Means-tested government benefits, like
Medicaid, create disincentives to work and save. Income tests discourage work by withdrawing
benefits as income rises. A higher income usually leads to fewer social services like SNAP or
Medicaid. Asset tests encourage people to transfer or spend down their assets to avoid saving to
become or remain eligible. Knowing their needs will be covered through social service
programs, eligible families may boost consumption and save less for emergencies. Economists
Aaron Yelowitz and Jonathan Gruber found that Medicaid recipients consumed more and saved
less, reducing their average household wealth in 1993 by $1,600 to $2,000 (in today’s dollars).
Substituting consumption for asset accumulation decreases the likelihood of escaping poverty.
Inherency. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law on
February 17, 2009, included an expansion of social services (read more about the Act on page
21). Negative teams can use this information in debates to argue one of two things. First,
perhaps the affirmative team’s increase has already been enacted. If that is the case, their plan is
not inherent. The second argument negative teams can make in light of the stimulus bill is that
74
John C. Goodman, Michael Bond, Devon Herrick and Pamela Villarreal, “Opportunities for State Medicaid
Reform,” Policy Report No. 288, September 2006.
61
congress has already allocated billions of dollars to social services. This was as much as
congress thought could be spent responsibility. We should wait for results before we spend
more.
62