Welfare Ads Stretch To Make A Point

By Brooks Jackson/CNN

WASHINGTON (May 21) -- Welfare is a political issue that the Republicans are test-marketing this year against Democratic Senate candidates with expensive TV ads.

They've spent more than $100,000, for example, on an ad appearing in Rhode Island that targets Rep. Jack Reed, a Democratic House member running for the Senate.

The ad claims: "Jack Reed is so liberal, he opposes making welfare recipients work for their checks. It's outrageous. Jack Reed has voted repeatedly against replacing welfare with workfare."

The Republican spot has had an effect, provoking a rebuttal ad from Reed. It declares:

"Reed has voted to require welfare recipients to work. But he opposed the Gingrich cuts in child nutrition. Jack Reed. Fighting for the working families of Rhode Island."

So who's telling the truth? The Republican say Reed "has voted repeatedly against replacing welfare with workfare."

In fact, Reed did vote against the Republican welfare bill, as did nearly all Democrats. But Reed's ad says he "has voted to require recipients to work."

And in fact he did vote for a Democratic welfare bill almost as tough on work as the Republicans. It was written, in fact, by Georgia Democrat Rep. Nathan Deal, who soon turned Republican himself.

The GOP bill required 50 percent of welfare recipients to be working or in job training or in job training by the year 2002. The Democratic bill required 40 percent.

So when Republicans say Reed opposes making welfare recipients work for their checks, the record shows that's false.

Republicans are also testing the welfare theme in Minnesota against Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone.

A Republican ad says: "You work hard for your paycheck. But liberal Paul Wellstone votes repeatedly against requiring welfare recipients to work for their paycheck....Since Wellstone went to Congress, welfare spending is up 71 percent to $260 billion. Yet Wellstone votes against workfare."

In fact, Wellstone voted for a Democratic welfare bill with a work requirement, but later voted against a bipartisan compromise that passed the Senate. He was the only senator up for re-election to do so.

But $260 billion? Come on! The fact is, Aid to Families with Dependent Children is costing federal taxpayers $17.4 billion a year. What the ad counts as "welfare" includes Medicaid and Social Security disability payments, tax credits for the working poor and college loans to needy students.

So that big number? It's a big exaggeration. Welfare is an important issue and there are real differences. But these ads just strain too much to make their point. They're misleading.

Copyright © 1996 AllPolitics
All Rights Reserved

Terms under which this information is provided to you