In other words, that limit should be raised (or exemptions should be allowed) so that the person getting a job and experiencing the pride and increased self-esteem that goes with it, should not have to lose the other supportive components (like food stamps and health insurance for the childrens needs) just because now she is making a bit over the limit that was set. Of course it would be reasonable and fair for the TANF to apply a cut-off date (within fairness guidelines). But for a mother who has just been liberated from the welfare rolls (and she was embarrassed to be on the welfare rolls to begin with) and who proudly now goes to work each day, dresses up nice, feels pretty and useful, it would be (and is) a shame to take her food stamps and childrens health insurance away because she is actually progressing up the socioeconomic ladder.
The $330 worth of food stamps she is eligible for should not be taken away while she is on the upswing of her career and her new life.
Also, the minimum wage should be raised — not just for welfare-to-work individuals, but also for all citizens who are able to and willing to work. And in addition, states should revise their rules with reference to child-care subsidies. If a person has left the welfare rolls and is working, she needs to know that her child is in a quality program. On page 622 Glazer has a sidebar story on child-care subsidies that are not being used. This money is not used in some cases because “states often dont pay for the kind of informal, unlicensed care that many welfare recipients must rely upon” because they work nights and weekends and typically, child-care services are during working ours Monday through Friday. Either.