Welfare reforms has been a success. Today, there are fewer people on the welfare rolls, and more people holding jobs, than there were before the welfare reform policiess adopted under President Clinton. Former welfare receipients are better off today because they are able to support themselves. The success of maximum time limits for collecting welfare benefits demonstrates that one need not be jobless for life. 

This argument states that the welfare reforms have been a success because of the decrease in the number of people enrolled for welfare and increase in the number of employed people. The welfare reforms included putting a maximum time limit on collecting welfare benefits. But, the effect stated by the author as a measure of success of welfare reforms is a direct consequence of removing people from welfare benefits.

The argument is flawed in the sense that it assumes that if lesser number of people are enrolled for welfare benefits, then the welfare reforms have been successful. Infact, the success of welfare reforms can be gauged only by looking at other statistics which portray the average prosperity of people. If after the introduction of the reforms, the prosperity and average incomes for people earlier enrolled for welfare benefits has increased, then these reforms can be considered as success. If the people who had exceeded maximum time limits were not able to secure decent jobs due to disability, bad health or any other reason, then welfare reforms will be deemed as a failure.


The argument goes on to claim that the welfare recepients are better off today because they were able to support themselves. This assertion needs more data, because if the average incomes have decreased, then people are simply getting exploited. Besides author fails to look into scenarios where older people with no pension and other means to support themselves might be getting forced to go back to work.


Lastly, the argument concludes that a person does not need to be jobless for life. This generalization is attributed to the success of the welfare reforms. In this case, the author fails to realize that people with critical illnesses, physical disabilities or mental incapabilities may not be able to secure a decent job. For them to be successfully initiated, many government initiatives will need to be taken. Just throwing people off welfare rolls, will not transform a person from jobless to a capable earning member of the society. Thus although these reforms have succeded in reducing the government expenditure, have they really helped in improving the public prosperity? The answer to this question still requires more data and analyses.