Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:44:26.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sectionalism and Policy Formation in the United States: President Carter's Welfare Initiatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Desmond King
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

President Jimmy Carter twice attempted to enact major reforms of the US welfare system. Using archival material from the Carter Presidential Library, this article argues that one major reason for the failure of both initiatives was the persistence of regional divisions between representatives from the north and south in the Congress. This factor is as germane to the welfare failure as poor presidential-congressional relations and changes to the committee seniority system in the Congress. American welfare programmes were institutionalized in such a way that, from the 1930s, building a coalition across sectional interests (as represented by members of the Congress) was nearly impossible: gains to one region constituted losses to the other. The consequence of the way Carter pursued and failed to achieve welfare reform was to enhance the priorities, particularly ‘working for welfare’, exploited by Reagan in the final year of his administration when the Family Support Act was enacted.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 337 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jimmy Carter Presidential Library (hereafter JCPL), White House Central File (hereafter WHCF), Box WE-12, Folder: WE 10 1/20/77–4/30/77, Memorandum from Watson, Jack and Parham, Jim. to Carter, , 15 04 1977, p. 1.Google Scholar

2 For example, see Davis, Eric L., ‘Legislative Reform and the Decline of Presidential Influence on Capitol Hill’, British Journal of Political Science, 9 (1979), 465–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peterson, M. P., Legislating Together (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Jones, C. O., The Trusteeship Presidency (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), chap. 3Google Scholar; and the essays in Davidson, R. H., ed., The Postreform Congress (New York: St Martin's Press, 1992)Google Scholar especially Pfiffner, J. P., ‘The President and the Postreform Congress’, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar

3 See Davis, , ‘Legislative Reform and the Decline of Presidential Influence’Google Scholar; and Davidson, , ed., The Postreform Congress.Google Scholar

4 Davis, ‘Legislative Reform and the Decline of Presidential Influence’, p. 474.Google Scholar

5 Davis, ‘Legislative Reform and the Decline of Presidential Influence’, p. 472.Google Scholar

6 See Kellerman, B., The Political Presidency (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), chap. 10Google Scholar; and Jones, , The Trusteeship Presidency, chap. 5.Google Scholar

7 For details see ‘Welfare Reform: Congress is Skeptical’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 39, 35 (24 09 1977), p. 2013Google Scholar. O'Neill had also formed, with similar results, a special ad hoc committee in the House for the passage of the president's complex energy programme. The failure of this presidential initiative and O'Neill's frustration with the White House's ineptitude in its dealings with Congress cannot have warmed the Speaker's support for later initiatives. See O'Neill, Tip, Man of the House (London: Bodley Head, 1987), especially pp. 310, 320Google Scholar. O'Neill records his poor treatment by Carter's aide, Hamilton Jordan, on the night before the president was sworn in at the gala at the Kennedy Center, see pp. 310–11.

8 For an analysis of Long's influence see Ehrenhalt, A., ‘Senate Finance: The Fiefdom of Russell Long’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 37, 35 (10 09 1977), pp. 1905–15.Google Scholar

9 It is also the case that a good deal of Carter's ambitious domestic reforms fell under the jurisdiction of these two committees and Peterson claims this presented a problem for the president: ‘Because of the issues Carter chose to pursue, and the manner in which he wished to approach them, the whole Congress did not get overloaded as much as parts of it did. By attempting comprehensive restructuring of federal energy policy, welfare, the tax system, health financing and the like, Carter sent to Congress a good deal of legislation with provisions that required favorable review of two committees, Ways and Means in the House and Finance in the Senate.’ (Peterson, , Legislating Together, p. 221.)Google Scholar

10 See Kellerman, , The Political Presidency, chap. 10Google Scholar; and Jones, , The Trusteeship Presidency, chap. 5.Google Scholar

11 O'Neill, , Man of the House, p. 323Google Scholar. Elsewhere O'Neill asks rhetorically: ‘Did he still think he was dealing with the Georgia legislature?’, p. 320Google Scholar. See also, Jones, Charles O., ‘Carter and Congress: From the Outside In,’ British Journal of Political Science, 15 (1985), 269–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 In his study Charles O. Jones succeeds admirably in reconstructing the work of this Office from interviews: see The Trusteeship Presidency.

13 O'Neill, , Man of the House (London: Bodley Head, 1987).Google Scholar

14 See interview reported in Peterson, , Legislating Together, p. 176.Google Scholar

15 See also Hargrove, E. C., Jimmy Carter as President (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), pp. 59–60Google Scholar, whose assessment is not dissimilar to mine.

16 Key, V. O. Jr, Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Vintage, 1949).Google Scholar

17 Bensel, Richard Franklin, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880–1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984).Google Scholar

18 Bensel, , Sectionalism and American Political Development, p. xix.Google Scholar

19 Bensel, , Sectionalism and American Political DevelopmentGoogle Scholar. See Bensel's appendix for details of how he constructed this index from regional trade delegations to the House.

20 See especially Quadagno, Jill, The Color of Welfare (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

21 For other discussions of Carter's welfare initiatives, see Hargrove, E. C., Jimmy Carter as President (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), pp. 54–9Google Scholar; Lynn, L. E. Jr and Whitman, D., The President as Policymaker (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; and Leman, C., The Collapse of Welfare Reform (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980)Google Scholar. Also of interest is Califano, J. A. Jr, Governing America (New York: Basic Books, 1981).Google Scholar

22 For an analysis of the unravelling of the New Deal Democratic coalition from the 1960s, see Edsall, T. D. and Edsall, M. B., Chain Reaction (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991).Google Scholar

23 For accounts, see Katz, M. B., In the Shadow of the Poorhouse (New York: Basic Books, 1986)Google Scholar; and Patterson, J. T., America's Struggle Against Poverty, 1900–1980 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

24 Quadagno explains how the political bases of the New Deal coalition shaped welfare programmes: ‘Social policy was shaped by the ability of the southern planter class to wield a disproportionate share of political power in the broader nation-state. Southern planters gained political power through the establishment of a one-party South, which effectively stifled opposition to the dominant planter class, and through the structure of the committee system in Congress, which allowed southern representatives to exercise a controlling negative influence on national legislation.’ (See Quadagno, Jill, ‘From Old-Age Assistance to Supplemental Security Income: The Political Economy of Relief in the South, 1935–1972’, in Weir, M., Orloff, A. and Skocpol, T., eds, The Politics of Social Policy in the USA (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 236).Google Scholar

25 JCPL, Domestic Policy Staff (hereafter, DPS), Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF, O/A 732][1], Letter from Moynihan, to Carter, , 8 02 1979, p. 2.Google Scholar

26 For the limits this coalition placed on welfare reform, see Alston, L. and Feree, J., ‘Labor Costs, Paternalism, and Loyalty in Southern Agriculture: A Constraint on the Growth of the Welfare State’, Journal of Economic History, 45 (1985), 95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Quadagno, Jill, ‘Two Models of Welfare State Development: Reply to Skocpol and Amenta’, American Sociological Review, 50 (1985), 575–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Quoted in Gest, K. W., ‘Welfare Reform: Carter Studying Options’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 18, 35 (30 04 1977), p. 792Google Scholar. See also Califano, J. Jr, Governing America (New York: Basic Books, 1981).Google Scholar

28 For a discussion, see King, D. S., Actively Seeking Work? The Politics of Unemployment and Welfare Policy in the United States and Great Britain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).Google Scholar

29 For a summary and formulation of Carter's thinking on welfare before entering the White House see the statement in JCPL WHCF, Memo from Watson, Jack and Parham, Jim to Carter, , 15 04 1977, pp. 1–3Google Scholar, in which twelve points are documented.

30 JCPL WHCF, Labor–Management Relations, Box LA2 File: LA2 1/20/77–3/20/77, Address by JC to Congress, 31 July 1977, p. 5.

31 Quoted in Gest, ‘Welfare Reform’, pp. 792–3.Google Scholar

32 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 319, Folder: Welfare Reform Proposal report, Summary, March 1977.

33 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 318, Folder: Welfare Reform, 8/77 [O/A 6347][1], Memorandum: Briefing Paper on Moynihan/Cranston/Long Bill, 12 July 1978.

34 At HEW Califano was assisted principally by former Brookings member Henry Aaron, assistant secretary for planning and evaluation. Aaron chaired the consulting group convened by Califano to advise on the welfare reform. Aaron defined the problem in terms which reflected the agreed initiative: ‘it is how to unite the almost universal desire to enable those with low income to earn enough to support themselves with the inevitable fact that many people will require cash assistance.’ (See Gest, , ‘Welfare Reform’, p. 792).Google Scholar

35 See Gest, K. W., ‘Carter's Welfare Statement: Reaction Mixed’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 19, 35 (7 05 1977), pp. 850–2.Google Scholar

36 JCPL DSP–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform 5/77, Memo from Secretary Califano to Carter, 19 May 1977, p. 2.

37 JCPL WHCF Welfare Box WE-13, Folder: WE10 8/1/77–12/31/77, Carter's speech to Congress, 6 August 1977, p. 1.

38 Richard Nixon, after six months in office, also proposed a significant reform of the US welfare system known as the family assistance plan (FAP). It constituted a basic income scheme, guaranteeing to each family of four an income of $ 1,600 per year, a $750 per year (or $60 per month) earned income disregard (that is, not liable to taxation), and a reduction rate of 50 per cent on additional earned income. This proposal was work-orientated but it included no public job creation programme.

For accounts, see Mead, L., Beyond Entitlement (New York: Free Press, 1985) especially chap. 5Google Scholar; Moynihan, D. P., The Politics of a Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance Plan (New York: Random House, 1973)Google Scholar; and Quadagno, Jill, ‘Race, Class and Gender in the US Welfare State: Nixon's Failed Family Assistance Plan’, American Sociological Review, 55 (1990), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Eisenstat was a key official throughout the Carter administration. For a profile see Bonatede, D., ‘Stuart Eizenstat – Carter's Right-hand Man’, National Journal, 9 06 1979.Google Scholar

40 JCPL DPS – Eizenstat, Box 317 Folder: Welfare reform 4/77, Memo to Carter from Eizenstat, Stu et al. 26 04 1977.Google Scholar

41 These included: (1) simplify administration and introduce efficient systems management by consolidating in one cash assistance program: SSI, AFDC, food stamps, ‘Section 8’ housing, earned income tax credit, extended unemployment benefits (26 to 39 weeks); (2) redirect CETA public service employment and training to jobs for the poorest people who can work; (3) freeze the state supplement to AFDC and SSI at current level; (4) provide a universal minimum federal benefit, with some variation to reflect different community costs of living; (5) no non-working family will have a higher income than a comparable working family; (6) provide special health, education and training programmes to those who need them to be prepared for redirected CETA jobs; (7) set up priorities for CETA jobs; (8) provide maximum incentive to work; (9) place as many incentives as possible for keeping the family together and eliminate all incentives for breaking up the family (JCPL WHCF, Welfare Box WE-12, Folder: WE10 1/20/77–4/30/77, Memo from Califano, to Carter, , 11 04 1977, pp. 1–2).Google Scholar

42 JCPL WHCF, Box WE-12, Folder: WE 10 1/20/77–4/30/77, Memo from Marshall to Carter, 13 April 1977: ‘although I agree with the general principles stated by Joe Califano I think it is too early in the program design to set specific details in concrete’.

43 This was at the request of the president: see JCPL WHCF, Box WE-12, Folder: WE10 1/20/77–4/30/77, Memo from Califano to Carter, 5 February 1977. This pre-legislative consultation rather undercuts the view that Carter failed to consult widely in formulating his domestic agenda.

44 JCPL WHCF, Box WE-12, Folder: WE10 1/20/77–1/20/81, Memo from Califano, to Carter, , 28 11 28 1978, p. 1.Google Scholar

45 JCPL WHCF, Memo from Califano, to Carter, , 28 11 1978, p. 1.Google Scholar

46 Quoted in ‘House Passes Welfare Reform Bill 222–184’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 45, 37 (10 11 1979), p. 2534.Google Scholar He added: ‘This bill fails the test’, a judgement which correctly anticipated the bill's failure to be enacted.

47 See Donnelly, H., ‘Scaled-Down Carter Welfare Plan Announced’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 21, 37 (26 05 1979), pp. 1013–14.Google Scholar

48 JCPL WHCF Labor–Management Relations Box LA-4, Folder: LA2 5/1/79–6/30/79, President's Address to Congress, 24 May 1979, p. 1.

49 JCPL WHCF, President's Address to Congress, 24 May 1979, p. 1. Emphasis added.

50 JCPL WHCF, President's Address to Congress, 24 May 1979, p. 3.

51 The Senate Finance committee began hearings on 7 February 1978 but the bill did not go to the floor.

52 See ‘Welfare Bill Pronounced Dead’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 25, 36 (24 06 1978), p. 1602.Google Scholar House Speaker Tip O'Neill ruled out major welfare reform in the current session of Congress.

53 See ‘House Passes Welfare Reform Bill 222–184’, p. 2534.Google Scholar

54 JCPL WHCF Welfare Box We-13, Folder: WE10 1/1/79–6/30/79, Memo to Carter from Eizenstat, McIntyre, Jim, Schultze, Charles, Califano, Joseph and Marshall, Ray, ‘Welfare Reform’, 15 05 1979, p. 4.Google Scholar

55 See Gest, K. W., ‘Senate Finance Committee Doing Its Own Thing on Welfare Reform’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 36, 35 (3 09 1977), pp. 1865–9.Google Scholar

56 See ‘Senate Votes Changes in Welfare Programs’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 43, 35 (22 10 1977), p. 2243.Google Scholar

57 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF O/A 732][1], Memo to Eizenstat from Mongan, Jim and Prioleau, Florence, ‘Status of Welfare Reform Bill’, 28 05 1980, p. 2.Google Scholar

58 See King, D. S., ‘Citizenship as Obligation in the United States: The Reform of Welfare in 1988’, in Vogel, U. and Moran, M., eds, The Frontiers of Citizenship (London: Macmillan, 1991).Google Scholar

59 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Memo to Eizenstat from Mongan, Jim and Prioleau, Florence, ‘Status of Welfare Reform Bill’, 28 05 1980, p. 2.Google Scholar

60 Ehrenhalt, , ‘Senate Finance’, p. 1905.Google Scholar

61 Ehrenhalt, , ‘Senate Finance’, p. 1910.Google Scholar

62 Almanac of 96th Congress 2nd Session 1980 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980), p. 34–C.Google Scholar

63 Quoted in Gest, K. W., ‘Carter, Congress and Welfare: A Long Road’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 33, 35 (13 08 1977), p. 1701.Google Scholar

64 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF, O/A 732][1], Letter from Moynihan, to Carter, , 8 02 1979, p. 1.Google Scholar

65 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat Box 318, Folder: Welfare Reform 8/77 [O/A 6347][2], Briefing prepared for JC by S. Eizenstat and F. Moore for fifteen minute meeting of the president with Moynihan, , 13 10 1978, p. 1.Google Scholar

66 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF O/A 732][1], Memo from Mongan, Jim and Prioleau, Florence to Eizenstat, Stu, ‘Background Briefing for Your February 4th Meeting with Senator Moynihan on Welfare Reform’, 2 02 1980, p. 2.Google Scholar As a memorandum prepared for the president noted, ‘Moynihan is intellectually favorable to reform, but his most urgent political need is fiscal relief for New York.’ DPS-Eizenstat Box 318, Memo from Eizenstat, and Raines, Frank, 19 07 1977, p. 1.Google Scholar

67 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat Box 318, Folder: Welfare Reform 8/77 [O/A 6347][2], Briefing prepared for JC by S. Eizenstat and F. Moore for fifteen minute meeting of the president with Moynihan, , 13 10 1978, p. 1Google Scholar

68 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Briefing Paper on Moynihan/Cranston/Long Bill, 12 July 1978, p. 3.

69 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat Box 318, Folder: Welfare Reform [O/A 6347][2], Memorandum from Eizenstat, to Carter, , ‘Senator Moynihan and Welfare Reform’, 11 10 1977, pp. 1, 2.Google Scholar

70 It is, of course, difficult to acquire an adequate picture of this Office's work in the absence of archival records. Two accounts based on interviews are provided by Bowles, N. in The White House and Capitol Hill (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), chap. 8, especially pp. 203–8Google Scholar, and Jones, , The Trusteeship Presidency, especially chap. 5.Google Scholar

71 Quoted in Donnelly, , ‘Scaled-Down Carter Welfare Plan Announced’, p. 1013.Google Scholar

72 See Donnelly, , ‘Scaled-Down Carter Welfare Plan Announced’, p. 1013.Google Scholar

73 See ‘Conservatives' Voting Strength Rises’, Almanac 95th Congress 1st Session 1977 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1977, pp. 15–B–20-B. Senator Clifford Hansen (Wyo.) supported the conservative coalition on 93 percent of votes in the second session of the 95th Congress.Google Scholar

74 Quoted in Gest, ‘Welfare Reform’, p. 793.Google Scholar

75 Quoted in Gest, , ‘Carter, Congress and Welfare’, pp. 1699–701.Google Scholar

76 See ‘Ullman Unveils Own Welfare Reform Plan’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 5, 36 (4 02 1978), pp. 268–71.Google Scholar

77 Some of these objections were shared by the state governors and the American Public Welfare Association of administrators.

78 Quoted in Gest, ‘Carter, Congress and Welfare’, p. 1699.Google Scholar

79 See ‘Administration Narrows Welfare Reform Plan to Meet '78 Objections’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 6, 37 (10 02 1979), p. 237.Google Scholar

80 See ‘Carter Compromise Seen on Welfare Reform Bill’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 12, 36 (25 03 1978), p. 759.Google Scholar

81 Both quoted in ‘Congress Could Approve Welfare Reform in 1978, Key Figures in Debate Say’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 20, 36 (20 05 1978).Google Scholar

82 See ‘Administration, House Leaders Agree on the Basics of Welfare Reform Bill’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 23, 36 (10 06 1978)Google Scholar; and ‘Welfare Bill Pronounced Dead’.

83 JCPL WHCF, Welfare Box WE-13, Folder: WE10 1/1/79–6/30/79. In an internal memorandum (9 February 1979) from Roger Altman to Secretary Blumenthal, Altman noted that ‘last fall, Moynihan, Cranston and Long co-sponsored a ‘no-frills’ welfare reform proposal, consisting only of fiscal relief to States. Moynihan's view is that Congress will not pass any major reform of the benefit structure – at least any reform involving new spending’, p. 1.

84 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF, O/A 732][1], Memo from Eizenstat, to Wise, Phil and Voorde, Fran, 30 04 1979.Google Scholar

85 ‘House Passes Welfare Reform Bill 222–184’, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 45, 37 (10 11 1979)Google Scholar. For the breakdown by representative, see Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, no. 51, 37 (29 12 1979), pp. 2952–3.Google Scholar

86 ‘House Passes Welfare Reform Bill 222–184’.

87 Figures from Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (29 12 1979), pp. 2945 and 2952–3.Google Scholar

88 Bensel, , Sectionalism and American Political Development 1880–1980, pp. 309–10Google Scholar. Bensel attributes importance also to party allegiance, but this approach seems less convincing.

89 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317 Folder: Welfare Reform [CF O/A 732][1], Memo from Mongan, Jim and Prioleau, Florence to Eizenstat, Stu, ‘Background Briefing for your February 4th Meeting with Senator Moynihan on Welfare Reform’, 2 02 1980, p. 1.Google Scholar

90 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF, O/A 732][2], Memo from Edley, Christopher to Eizenstat, and Carp, Bert, ‘Welfare Reform Strategy Meeting – 2.00 p.m. in Room 208’, 6 02 1979, p. 1.Google Scholar

91 JCPL WHCF, Memo to Carter, from Eizenstat, et al. , ‘Welfare Reform’, 15 05 1979, p. 5.Google Scholar

92 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF, O/A, 732][2], Memo from Edley, Christopher to Eizenstat, and Carp, Bert, ‘Welfare Reform Strategy Meeting’, 6 02 1979, p. 2.Google Scholar

93 JCPL WHCF, Memo to Carter, from Eizenstat, et al. ‘Welfare Reform’, 15 05 1979, p. 5.Google Scholar

94 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Letter from Moynihan, to Carter, , 8 02 1979, p. 3.Google Scholar

95 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Box 317, Folder: Welfare Reform [CF, O/A 732][1], Letter from Carter, to Moynihan, , 21 03 1979, p. 3Google Scholar. Eizenstat advised Carter to attach a handwritten note ‘authenticating’ that the letter was from JC.

96 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Memo from Mongan, Jim and Prioleau, Florence to Eizenstat, Stu, ‘Background Briefing for your February 4th Meeting with Senator Moynihan on Welfare Reform’, 2 02 1980, p. 3.Google Scholar

97 JCPL DPS–Eizenstat, Memo to Eizenstat, from Mongan, Jim and Prioleau, Florence, ‘Status of Welfare Reform Bill’, 28 05 1980, p. 4.Google Scholar

98 JCPL WHCF Welfare, Box WE-13, Folder: WE 10 1/1/80–9/30/80, Letter from Eizenstat, to Hawkins, , 25 05 1980.Google Scholar

99 JCPL WHCF LA 2, Box LA-3, Folder: LA2 1/1/78–2/28/78, Memo from Marshall, Ray, Eizenstat, Stu and McIntyre, Jim to Carter, , 21 02 1978, p. 2.Google Scholar

100 JCPL WHCF Labor–Management Relations Box LA-4, Folder: LA2 2/1/80–6/30/80, Memo from Eizenstat, to Carter, , 26 03 1980.Google Scholar

101 Big business opposed CETA. These views were expressed by the president of NAM in 1977. Writing to President Carter, NAM President E. Douglas Kenna argued that ‘it is industry's view that a far more effective, more enduring and ultimately less costly approach is through the encouragement of private sector employment.’ He continued by rehearsing traditional employers' antipathy to an active Federal government: ‘private sector employment stimulation would not require the development of additional government programs or administrative structures; government payrolls would not be swollen to accommodate unnecessary employees and workers would be engaged in productive jobs’ (JCPL WHCF Labor–Management Relations Box LA2 File: LA2 1/20/77–3/20/77, Letter from NAM President Kenna, E. Douglas to JC, 14 01 14 1977, p. 2)Google Scholar. However, CETA was authorized and extended despite this opposition. See also correspondence in JCPL WHCF Labor–Management Relations, Box LA-2, Folder: LA2 1/20/77–3/20/77, NAM, ‘Unemployment and Job Creation’, enclosed with a letter from NAM President McKenna, to Carter, , 14 01 1977.Google Scholar

102 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 91st Congress, 1st Session 1969 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1969), p. 92Google Scholar. Nixon declared: ‘a guaranteed income establishes a right. without any responsibility; family assistance recognizes a need and establishes a responsibility. It provides help to those in need and, in turn, requires that those who receive help work to the extent of their capabilities.’ Full text in Moynihan, , The Politics of a Guaranteed Income, p. 224Google Scholar. See Nathan, R. P., Turning Promises Into Performance (Washington, DC: Twentieth Century Fund, 1993), chap. 2.Google Scholar

103 This proposal reflected trade unionists hostility to FAP because of its implications for the minimum wage if low-wage workers had to be found jobs. See Quadagno, , The Color of Welfare, chap. 5.Google Scholar

104 Hearings lasted two days. The bill was returned to the White House by Chairman Long. A revised plan was given hearings in July 1970 when Long postponed consideration until after the November elections. A tentative vote on the proposal in October was defeated 14–1 (all Republicans voting against) and in October another vote defeated the bill 10–6. The liberal from Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy, scheduled an unofficial hearing of the Committee in November 1970 at which the National Women's Rights Organization opposed the programme. Three of the Committee's six liberal members voted against FAP and one abstained.

105 Moynihan, , The Politics of a Guaranteed Income, p. 500.Google Scholar

106 In the Senate by fifty-two votes to thirty-four.

107 See Kellerman, , The Political Presidency, chap. 8.Google Scholar

108 US Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, Hearings of HR 16311 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 292.Google Scholar

109 Senate, Committee on Finance, Hearings on HR 16311, p. 254.Google Scholar

110 For an analysis of the importance of a threatened presidential veto in 1988, see the account in King, D. S. ‘The Establishment of Work-Welfare Programs in Britain and the USA’, in Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. and Longstreth, F., eds, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), especially pp. 228–33.Google Scholar

111 For details, see Baum, Erica, ‘When the Witch Doctors Agree: The Family Support Act and Social Science Research’Google Scholar; and Haskins, Ron, ‘Congress Writes a Law: Research and Welfare Reform’, both in Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10 (1991), 603–15 and 616–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar respectively; and Mead, L., The New Politics of Poverty (New York: Basic Books, 1992).Google Scholar