1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women'schoice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy andResearch Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits donot show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of"incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC(Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has anotherchild.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise withinflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation,12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not droppedcorrespondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as thenational average.

2. We don't subsidize middle-class families.

Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of "familycaps"--denying additional benefits to women who have children whilereceiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: "A family thatworks does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a familythat doesn't work?" columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe(4/16/92).

In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children,in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits topartially cover child care expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child.No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision tohave children on these "perks."

3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.

"The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is muchharder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer," wrotecolumnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to suchclaims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In aDecember 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA),80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibilityto try to do away with poverty." (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study ofAmerican Attitudes, CSPA)

Support for "welfare" is lower than support for "assistance to the poor,"but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as "thefederal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployedpoor single mothers with children," only 21 percent said funding should becut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.

4. We've spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the '60s and it hasn'tworked.

Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federalpoverty programs don't work, since after all that "lavish" spending, peopleare still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to aswelfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagonspends in two years.

To get the $5 trillion figure, "welfare spending" must be defined toinclude all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, studentlunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by farthe largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly anddisabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health carefor AFDC recipients. ("What Do We Spend on 'Welfare'?," Center for Budgetand Policy Priorities)

Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19percent to 11 percent, with the advent of "Great Society" programs. Sincethe 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reducedbenefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.

5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.

Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits (Harper's,4/94). But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable child caremake working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And thelow-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do notpay enough to lift a family out of poverty.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfaredebate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interestrates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women onwelfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to bethrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."