Topics
Helping the Neediest Achieve Self-Reliance and Join the Middle Class
Improving Medicaid in order to Better Care for the Vulnerable
Effective, Locally-Run Job Training
Giving Hourly Workers the Flexibility to Trade Overtime Pay for Family Time
Helping the Neediest Achieve Self-Reliance and Join the Middle Class
When Americans fall on hard times, there’s a safety net for them, helping them with life’s necessities while they work to get back on their feet. But here’s the challenge: instead of helping Americans get back on their feet, the government is too often simply handing people money and sending them away in isolation, not empowering them to achieve self-reliance. This was made worse by President Obama’s decision to waive long-standing, bipartisan work requirements for welfare recipients—and today our nation spends nearly $1 trillion on welfare programs. To be sure, the best way to help out-of-work Americans is to create jobs and grow our economy. We also need to make sure that temporary government assistance is there for those who truly need it by reinstating these commonsense work requirements. We need welfare reforms that care about helping people, without trapping them in a lifetime of dependence.
YG Network Poll Data:
-
When asked which federal programs should be cut to reduce spending, welfare programs (44%) far outweighed military (32%), Social Security (8%) and Medicare (6%) (March Poll).
- 82% agree that the 3.5 million able-bodied adults with no dependents who receive food stamps risk long-term dependency and should be obligated to work or actively seek employment in exchange for food stamps (May poll).
- Conservatives: 91% agree
- Moderates: 83% agree
- Liberals: 73% agree
- 63% of respondents say welfare programs should be available to provide temporary assistance, but the safety net can become a dependency trap by discouraging self- sufficiency and hurting those we intend to help (May poll).
- Conservatives: 82% agree
- Moderates: 61% agree
- Liberals 44% agree
YG Network Focus Group Data:
-
“It’s such a broken system, I have patients who talk about selling their food stamps.”
– Swing participant, Palm Beach
-
“You either have to be real rich or poor to get benefits. If you’re in the middle, you’re screwed.”
– Tea Party participant, Manassas -
“We make enough so we can’t get [government] benefits, but not enough to send them to college.”
– Swing participant, Palm Beach
YG Network Dial Tests:
Respondents recognize that sometimes people need a helping hand from government when they experience difficult circumstances. However, respondents do not believe that a “helping hand” should go on indefinitely. Respondents believe that the federal government is not doing enough to help people make themselves more self-sufficient. Respondents believe that able-bodied welfare recipients should be engaging in work activities. This is seen as an issue of fairness.
| WHAT: | WHY: |
| The safety net | |
| When Americans fall on hard times, there’s a safety net for them. The government provides cash, food, housing, and health care so they have a way to survive. Those struggling to put food on the table can get an EBT card, also known as food stamps. For housing there are housing subsidies. Those without jobs can collect unemployment benefits. | Respondents recognize that sometimes people need a helping hand from government when they experience difficult circumstances. However, respondents do not believe that “helping hand” should go on indefinitely. |
| The challenge we face with the safety net | |
| Here’s the challenge: the government is simply handing out money, and then sending people away without direction, and not empowering them to eventually move off of assistance. It’s not right when the safety net turns into a trap, one that people cannot escape from. Trapping people in dependency isn’t the goal of government assistance. And it isn’t compassionate—not to the poor who deserve a better life, and not to middle-class workers who foot the bill. | Respondents believe that the federal government is not doing enough to help people make themselves more self-sufficient. |
| Reforming the safety net | |
| Congress should encourage the right type of tax reform and economic policy. This will encourage job creation in the country, so people have access to better opportunities and less chance of becoming dependent. Indeed, we do need a safety net for the elderly, the disabled, and those who cannot work. We’ve gone through tough times and need to provide unemployment benefits temporarily. But for too many, government reliance has become a way of life, especially for those on food stamps. | Respondents believe that a strong economy with an abundance of well-paying jobs would reduce the need for government dependence. They agree that the right type of tax reform and economic policy would lead us there. In addition, respondents disapprove of government reliance becoming a way of life. In their view, we need to do more to help people successfully transition to independence and self-reliance. |
| Safety net spending | |
| When we go into economic downturns, more people need government assistance, so spending for aid goes up. But when the economy recovers, even though fewer people need the programs, the spending—which currently totals nearly $1 trillion—stays the same. That’s wrong. It makes sense for assistance spending to rise and fall with actual need. So when the economy recovers and unemployment is reduced, we should expect total welfare spending to be reduced to pre-recession levels. But this has not been the case. | Respondents are frustrated that spending on government assistance increases during economic downturns and then only goes up from there—never decreasing with an economic recovery. |
| Abuses of the safety net | |
| You may have heard about the 29-year-old California man who can work but doesn’t want to. Jason Greenslate uses his food stamps to buy things like lobster, and spends his days surfing, drinking, and chasing girls. And after an Orlando TV station exposed how EBT cards were being used at liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos, Florida Governor Rick Scott earlier this year signed a law banning their use at these establishments. Able-bodied adults with no dependents, like that surfer, should be required to work or actively seek employment in exchange for food stamps. | Respondents believe that able-bodied adults should be required to work or actively seek employment to receive government benefits, such as food stamps. They strongly resent the idea that they are working hard while there are people out there who are getting something for nothing. This scored very well among Tea Party respondents. This also scored well among moderate Independents, although, there was some disagreement among Independents. |
| The 1996 Welfare Reform Legislation | |
| The 1996 welfare reform legislation was the most successful social welfare initiative in 50 years. Because of it, there were three million fewer children in poverty, with the lowest poverty rate among African-American children in history. Welfare caseloads were cut in half. Millions were lifted out of poverty. It was a reform that cared about helping people who fell on tough times, without trapping them in the cycle of dependency. And it worked. | This resonated particularly well with the Tea Party respondents. It is important to keep in mind that not everyone remembers the 1996 welfare reform legislation, so providing background information is very important. In the context of this discussion, we explored the often-cited line: “Welfare ultimately hurts those it intends to help.” Be aware this paradoxical statement is interpreted literally by some audience members, who did not grasp helping and hurting simultaneously. |
| Undermining welfare reform | |
| Unfortunately, the Obama Administration used the 2009 stimulus bill, and then its executive authority last year, to waive important federal requirements, ones that ensure that a portion of able-bodied welfare recipients engage in work activities. These bipartisan work requirements were a key part of the welfare reform legislation in 1996 that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It’s wrong for the Obama Administration to oppose them. | Respondents believe that able-bodied welfare recipients should be engaging in work activities. This is seen as an issue of fairness. Respondents are working hard to earn a living, and they believe that if able-bodied people are receiving welfare benefits, they should be working hard to improve their lives. This stipulation no longer exists as a result of the Obama Administration’s action of waiving the work requirements in the 1996 welfare reform legislation. |
| Helping those who really need it | |
| Many welfare recipients draw from more than one program. Sometimes this is a necessity, since different programs meet different needs. But other times there’s duplication, waste, and even abuse. It’s time for an independent audit of federal welfare programs to assure that resources aren’t wasted or abused, so the people who really need the help can get it. That’s only fair. | Respondents strongly dislike duplication, waste, and abuse in government programs, and they believe that steps need to be taken to protect taxpayer money. Also, they want to be sure that those who really need the help from our welfare programs are getting it. |
Improving Medicaid in order to Better Care for the Vulnerable
Millions of Americans depend on Medicaid, a program which has grown drastically in recent years and is set to expand even more under President Obama’s healthcare law. While costs continue to surge, we have to ask: where will America find the money to pay for this? At the same time, it’s become clear that Medicaid does not deliver an acceptable level of care to those who depend on it—as more than 30 percent of primary care doctors and specialists are forced to refuse new Medicaid patients because of low reimbursement rates. If we overload the system, we’re not able to provide help for anyone. Let’s strengthen this program for those who depend on it, and bring its costs in line for the taxpayers who are expected to foot the bill. We can do this by giving states the flexibility to design Medicaid plans that meet their people’s needs. It’s worked in several states already, with improved outcomes, high patient satisfaction and lowered costs. Let’s take this ingenuity and compassion, and put it to work strengthening Medicaid.
YG Network Poll Data:
- 80% are concerned that inflation adjusted Medicaid spending in 2013 is roughly twice what the United States spent ten years ago (March poll).
- Conservatives: 89% concerned, 47% extremely concerned
- Moderates: 79% concerned, 31% extremely concerned
- Liberals: 71% concerned, 26% extremely concerned
- 56% want to give governors more flexibility with the federal Medicaid program so they can target resources on sicker people and give healthier recipients cheaper basic coverage (May poll).
- Conservatives: 54%
- Moderates: 64%
- Liberals: 53%
YG Network Dial Tests:
Protecting the poor and vulnerable comports with respondents’ values, but they are concerned about the rapid expansion of the Medicaid program under Obamacare, because they do not know where the extra money to pay for an additional 27 million people will come from and what impact that could have on the program.
| WHAT: | WHY: |
| Cost | |
| Medicaid has grown drastically, especially in the last decade—by 64 percent. Medicaid is about to expand even more, thanks to the President’s healthcare law. Currently about 56 million people are covered by Medicaid. By 2020 it will cover almost 83 million people. Where are we going to get the money to pay for this? | Respondents are concerned about the rapid expansion of the Medicaid program under Obamacare, because they do not know where the extra money to pay for an additional 27 million people will come from and what impact that could have on the program. |
| Access to doctors | |
| While Medicaid costs surge, recipients are having another problem: finding doctors who will see them. More than 30 percent of primary care doctors and specialists will not accept new Medicaid patients, according to a recent study. Most of the time doctors incur a loss when they see Medicaid patients. One doctor even said it would be cheaper to treat Medicaid patients for free than it is to apply for Medicaid reimbursements. | Respondents want Medicaid recipients to be able to find doctors who will see them so they can get the health care they need. It is important to focus on how unfair it is that Medicaid recipients may have difficulty finding doctors who will see them because they rely on the program for their health care needs. |
| Protecting the poor and vulnerable | |
| Unsustainable expansion of an already broken system threatens Medicaid’s ability to do what it was set up to do: serve the poor and vulnerable. As President Obama says, poor children, grandparents, kids with autism and Down syndrome and other disabilities—“these are the people who count on Medicaid.” We need to reform Medicaid so they can continue to count on it. Because if we overwhelm the system, we’re not able to provide help for anyone. We need to construct a Medicaid health system that delivers essential health services and better outcomes while responsibly managing costs. | Protecting the poor and vulnerable comports with respondents’ values, but right now, they are concerned that the rate of growth in the Medicaid program is unsustainable. They are concerned that if the program is overwhelmed, the people who rely on the program the most will not have access to the health care they need. |
| Empowering states | |
| Many governors have complained that they could improve services and save money, if only Washington would give them more flexibility. Our idea for reforming Medicaid is for the federal government to return Medicaid dollars to the individual states and empower them to develop their own plans. After all, different states have different needs. By empowering states to creatively customize their systems as they see fit, Medicaid can be made more personal, and promote improved health outcomes. This should be our focus. | Respondents agree that providing individual states with more flexibility to develop their own plans would improve Medicaid and promote improved health outcomes. While Tea Party respondents strongly agreed with this argument, moderate Independents responded less favorably to the idea of empowering states to develop their own Medicaid plans. |
| State flexibility | |
| A few states, such as Rhode Island, Indiana, and Florida, have obtained certain waivers from the federal government in order to reform their Medicaid programs. They’ve had success both in improved outcomes and controlled costs. Rhode Island has slowed its growth in Medicaid spending while providing more efficient and more coordinated care. Indiana’s health care plans for uninsured low income residents also have improved quality of care; 94 percent of participants have expressed satisfaction with the program. Florida has been piloting a Medicaid overhaul in five major counties for over six years. Recipients can choose among different insurance plans and can receive cash incentives for healthy behavior, like quitting smoking. The state has saved $118 million a year, with improved health outcomes and 83 percent higher satisfaction rates for those in the program. When the program is implemented statewide, Florida expects to save almost a billion dollars a year. Giving states flexibility works. We should be striving to replicate these results across the country. | Respondents agree that flexibility has been working in some states, resulting in both improved outcomes and controlled costs. While Tea Party respondents strongly agreed with this, be aware that moderate Independents expressed some skepticism about the ability of states to successfully develop and run their own Medicaid plans. |
| Improving Medicaid | |
| Let’s do what’s right for all Americans by producing Medicaid reform that controls costs while it coordinates care and improves access to physicians. Let’s put American compassion and ingenuity to work to improve Medicaid. | Improving health care for poor people comports with the values of respondents. They want Medicaid to continuously improve so that it is helping those that it is intended to help while keeping costs under control. |
Effective, Locally-Run Job Training
There’s no better ingredient for a middle class life than a well-paying job. But finding a job—finding the right job—can be a huge challenge. Our economy is not only weak, it’s changing and many manufacturing jobs are moving overseas, leaving Americans with jobs that just don’t pay enough to sustain a middle class lifestyle. Too often, the hardest-hit Americans are blue-collar workers without college degrees, whose experience often doesn’t match up with what local employers are looking for. While the federal government spends $18 billion every year on job training, that money is spread across nine different departments and thirty different programs. As a result, it’s used too inefficiently to make a difference for most Americans who need it. That’s why we need to cut through the duplication and red tape, and provide Americans with much-needed job training, run by local leaders who understand the needs of local employers.
YG Network Poll Data:
- 72% approve of turning over the numerous different federal job training programs to the states, where local officials are closer to their employment needs (May poll).
- Conservatives: 82%
- Moderates: 73%
- Liberals: 60%
YG Network Dial Tests:
Respondents recognize that our economy is changing and that it is very important to have the skills that match the available jobs in a high tech economy. Respondents support the SKILLS Act because it reduces waste by taking so many overlapping programs and uniting them into a single Workforce Investment Fund. Simply rooting out waste and helping those who want to benefit from job training is very important to respondents.
| WHAT: | WHY: |
| A well-paying job is important | |
| A vital ingredient for a middle-class life is a well-paying job. But finding a good job—finding the right job—can be a challenge. With manufacturing work moving overseas, the number of high-paying factory jobs with good benefits has drastically declined. Many of the new jobs being created in today’s economy, such as those in food service and retail, don’t pay enough to sustain a middle class lifestyle. | Respondents are concerned about the future as the well-paying jobs of the past have disappeared in recent years. |
| Increasing opportunity | |
| Hardest hit are unemployed blue-collar workers without college degrees. Often these Americans can’t get a well-paying job because they lack the experience employers are looking for. Their experience no longer matches the available jobs in a high tech economy. But with the right training, they would have increased opportunity in a variety of fields. They could become registered nurses and medical assistants, heating and cooling system installers, computer support specialists, accounting clerks, or information technicians. Now, more than ever, it’s crucial that we have effective job training programs to help Americans who are eager to get back to work. | Respondents recognize that our economy is changing and that it is very important to have the skills that match the available jobs in a high tech economy. They know that having the right training increases opportunity for them and having the right skills can lead to a well-paying job. |
| Workforce development programs | |
| Actually, we’ve had many workforce development programs since at least the 1960s. The most recent one is the Workforce Investment Act, last authorized in 1998. It provides federal funding for workforce development activities. It was intended to create a one-stop shop for access to training and employment services for a wide range of workers. But we have to ask an important question: Do these programs work? According to a 2011 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by analyst James Bovard, “If federal job training efforts worked, Congress would not have thrown out the programs it has created every decade or so and enacted new ones.” | Respondents are skeptical that training programs work. This is highlighted by two key points. First, respondents see Congress getting rid of old training programs and replacing them with new programs, which suggests that the programs are not working effectively. Second, only a handful of respondents told us that they or someone they know has benefited from a job training program. Therefore, most are hearing about all this money being spent, but they are not seeing positive results. |
| Duplicative job training programs | |
| The federal government spends about $18 billion every year for nine departments to administer more than 30 programs. Almost all of those programs overlap in some way, providing duplicate services to duplicate populations. We can’t afford that kind of waste. We are spending billions of dollars on programs that are not helping the people that they need to help. It’s not fair to taxpayers, and it’s definitely not fair to the people who need jobs. In fact, President Obama criticized the system in his 2012 State of the Union Address. He urged Congress to simplify the “maze of confusing training programs.” | Respondents believe that the federal government wastes too much money and that there are too many overlapping programs that are not helping the people they are intended to help. They think it is unfair that billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on programs that are not helping those who need it. |
| The SKILLS Act | |
| To improve job training for the millions of Americans still looking for work, the House of Representatives passed the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, also known simply as the SKILLS Act. The SKILLS Act reauthorizes and updates the Workforce Investment Act to make sure that government dollars are responsibly spent. The SKILLS Act takes the overlapping programs and unites them into a single Workforce Investment Fund, with a higher level of accountability built in. Right now people using these programs have to navigate an arbitrary and time-consuming bureaucracy before they can access training. For instance, they are required to go through a process that includes resume assistance and career counseling, even if all they really need for a new job is training. | Respondents support the SKILLS Act because it reduces waste by taking so many overlapping programs and uniting them into a single Workforce Investment Fund. Simply rooting out waste and helping those who want to benefit from job training is very important to respondents. |
| Efficient training programs | |
| The SKILLS Act cuts through the red tape so that workers can enter training programs, and ultimately the work force, as quickly as possible. | Respondents want these training programs to work effectively—without so much government red tape—so people can get the training they need to enter the work force. |
| Bringing colleges and local employers together | |
| The SKILLS Act also eases the application process for community and technical colleges to be included in the list of eligible training providers. The role of local employers in the training process will be strengthened under this act. If workers are being trained in skills that nearby businesses actually need, they won’t have to uproot their families to find a job. | This resonated with respondents because they like the idea that we would work to match those obtaining skills in community and technical colleges with local employers who are looking to hire people with those skills. |
| Locally-run training programs | |
| Much of the administration of the program will be handled at the state level, since the people and resources closest to a problem are the ones best equipped to deal with it. Americans need these updates to the Workforce Investment Act so that it’s easier for them to get back to work. But while this legislation affects the entire nation, its impact must take place locally. State and local officials, as well as employers in a given region, understand their communities’ needs better than any person in a distant Washington office ever could. | Respondents agree with the idea that training programs should be run locally by state and local officials and employers who have a better understanding of their communities’ needs. They believe that training programs run locally would be more successful because there is more accountability at the local level. |
| Getting results now | |
| Unemployed Americans can’t afford for us to cling to wasteful, complicated government programs. They want to get the training they need now. They deserve a smart, effective program to provide them with better opportunities for employment. Let’s get American workers the training they need, so they can get back to work, where they want to be. | Respondents want the taxpayer money that is being spent on these programs to work effectively, and they strongly disapprove of government waste. |
Giving Hourly Workers the Flexibility to Trade Overtime Pay for Family Time
While there are plenty of situations where working parents need the extra cash that comes from overtime, there are other instances where what you really need is extra time. We can make things easier for middle class parents by letting employers give workers the option to use their overtime pay for paid time off. The Working Families Flexibility Act would allow hourly employees a choice between cash wages and comp time for overtime hours worked—meaning workers have more control over their time and more freedom to meet their own families’ needs.
YG Network Dial Tests:
We learned through our dial tests that to be even more effective at demonstrating the need for this policy, it’s important to emphasize that this is voluntary on the employee’s part and that it gives hourly workers the same flexibility many salaried workers already enjoy. Respondents agree that the face of our workforce has changed and that families may require more flexible work schedules than they have needed in the past, which is why they find the Working Families Flexibility Act so appealing.
| WHAT: | WHY: |
| Updating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 | |
| Sometimes laws outlive their usefulness. One of those laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, prevents hourly workers from receiving comp time in exchange for overtime work. Comp time is vacation time equal to one-and-a-half times the overtime you worked. An update to this Great Depression labor law would allow hourly workers to enjoy the benefits of comp time. They could use comp time for vacation, to attend their children’s activities, to care for aging parents, or for anything they need. This would be a great way to provide workers with more flexibility. Because while there are some situations where you need extra cash, there are other instances where what you really need is extra time. | Respondents agree that sometimes our laws outlive their usefulness and need to be updated to adjust to a changing society. |
| A changing workforce | |
| When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed, most fathers worked while most mothers stayed home. That’s not the face of today’s workforce. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 59% of married-couple families with children have both parents employed. And 67% of single mothers with children, and 81% of single fathers with children are employed. When children get sick, or have doctor’s appointments, or have events at school, mom or dad has to take off work. Right now that means they have to use vacation days or sick leave. Many workers have to meet the needs of aging parents, often from long distance. Comp time would give them extra flexibility to take care of these family needs without whittling away their vacation time. | Respondents agree that the face of our workforce has changed and that families may require more flexible work schedules than they have needed in the past, which is why they find the Working Families Flexibility Act so appealing. |
| The Working Families Flexibility Act | |
| If Congress really cares about making things easier for middle class parents, it should allow employers to give workers the option to use overtime pay for paid time off. Congress should pass the Working Families Flexibility Act, which would give hourly employees these same options that salaried workers and government employees already enjoy. The Act would allow employees a choice between cash wages and comp time for overtime hours worked. | Respondents believe that hourly workers should enjoy the same choices that salaried workers and government employees already have. |
| Employee protections | |
| All the existing employee protections in current law will be preserved, including the 40-hour work week and how overtime compensation is accrued. And there are additional protections. For instance, employees who want to receive cash overtime wages would continue to do so. No employee can be forced to take comp time instead of overtime pay. | Respondents would need to have confidence that our well-established labor laws would remain intact, and that workers really would have the flexibility that this proposed law promises. It’s important to emphasize that this is voluntary. |
| Cashing out | |
| Workers would be free to “cash out” their accrued comp time whenever they choose. And at the end of the year the employer would have to pay cash wages for any unused comp time. | Respondents like the idea of having the flexibility to “cash out” any comp time whenever an employee chooses to do so. |
| Written agreement | |
| The Act protects employees by requiring the employer and the employee to complete a written agreement to use comp time, entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the employee. Where the employee is represented by a union, the agreement to take comp time must be part of the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer. | Requiring a written agreement between an employee and an employer is a safeguard that would allow an employee to have confidence that he or she would be treated fairly and not lose workplace protections. |
| Providing workers with more control | |
| Workers face many personal demands. The Working Families Flexibility Act would give them more control over their time, and more freedom to meet their own and their families’ needs. | Respondents like the freedom of being able to choose between comp time and overtime pay. |
| A real-life example | |
| Karen DeLoach is a bookkeeper from Montgomery, Alabama who wants to use her overtime to take care of aging parents and sick family members. She recently testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about the real-life consequences of the current, inflexible law, and in favor of the Working Families Flexibility Act. She said of the proposed legislation, “I keep hearing the opposition to this is that employers are going to take advantage of employees. If I’ve said I want my overtime to be paid back to me in time, rather than in money, then I’m making that choice.” It’s only right that our laws governing the workplace catch up to the realities of today’s workers. | This is an effective example of someone who would benefit from having the choice between comp time and overtime pay. The woman in this example also dispels some of the concerns that critics of this proposed law would discuss in a set of arguments against this proposal. “Choice” is the key word here. |