It has been six months since Wisconsin’s Tommy Thompson left the governor’s job, where he burnished his reputation as the architect of welfare reform, to be the secretary of Health and Human Services. He met recently with journalists at the Casey Journalism Center at the University of Maryland.
Q. What made you first decide to take such an aggressive stand on welfare?
A. Because a lot of people were writing stories about how generous Wisconsin was when it came to benefits, that we were paying twice as much as what a welfare recipient would get in Chicago. People in Wisconsin were getting irritated and they elected me on a platform of welfare reform.
Q. What was your inspiration?
A. I got my best ideas from welfare moms, whom I invited to the executive mansion on a monthly basis. We’d sit around a big table and I’d ask them why they couldn’t go to work. They said, “Well, if we’re going to go to work, we’re going to need health insurance because we have that on AFDC.” And I thought that made sense. Then they said, “What are we going to do with our children while we’re working?” So I provided day care and then training and transportation. What I found out is that they really wanted to go to work, but they were usually beaten down, criticized, had kids at an early age, had spousal abuse, alcohol and drug problems. So you had to set up all these waivers throughout the years–and every time I set up a new waiver, I was able to get more welfare mothers to go to work.
Q. So what’s the lesson?
A. Don’t try to do welfare on the cheap because it won’t work. All you’re going to do is embarrass yourself and not accomplish your objective and you’ll be criticized for being harsh on low-income mothers. People in Congress thought if we could reduce the caseload like Wisconsin, we would be able to save lots of dollars, but I knew it was going to be expensive. When I started, Wisconsin was spending $12 million on day care. When I left, we were close to $300 million.
Q. For most of your tenure as governor, the economy was booming. Do you think the same strategies will work in tougher times?
A. My plan is to ask Congress to continue the level of funding even though the number of welfare cases has been cut in half. Some people on Capitol Hill will tell you that, since you’ve reduced the caseload from 12 million to 5.3 million, we should be able to reduce the allotments by one-half. It’s going to cost more because the people left on the welfare rolls are the ones who will be the hardest to place. Two-thirds have alcohol and drug problems or both, 50 percent will not have a high school education. So, as I said, you can’t do it on the cheap.
Q. What’s the next step now that so many mothers are working?
A. To move them up the economic ladder, with more emphasis on education and by encouraging them to go into jobs where we really have a shortage, such as nurses, or lab technicians. That’s something I’m going to be pushing very hard for.
Q. Did you receive any commitments from President Bush before taking the job?
A. Well, first, I didn’t want this job. I was enjoying being governor and I had a 75 percent approval rating after 14 years in a Democratic state, which is pretty good. I wanted to finish out my 16th year and go into the job market and make some money. Then the president called and said he wanted me to join the Cabinet. I really had an inclination to be secretary of transportation. I would presume that the president will give me the flexibility to put together a good welfare package and I intend to do that. I could not, in good conscience, put together a poor package because I have invested too much of my life in developing something that is good for the people.
Q. How does the power shift in the Senate alter the dynamics of what will be debated next year?
A. I think both sides will want to pass what is right. There’s talk about Zell Miller (D-Ga.) changing to a Republican. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) is 98. So who knows? I don’t see this as a partisan issue because both sides are trying to take credit for welfare reform.
Q. Some of your critics say that the numbers look better because a lot of people just left the state and that problems abound in affordable housing.
A. One thing you will notice is that in the last 12 years nobody tried to change W2 in Wisconsin. They may have tried incremental things, but not to reverse it, because it’s working. Is everybody successful? No. But there’s one constant: Nobody ever got out of poverty on AFDC. Minimum wage is higher than you get on welfare–except maybe in one or two states–and on top of that, you get the federal earned income tax credit, food stamps. I don’t want to be critical, but I do think we waste a lot of money.
Q. What else do we need to do?
A. Health insurance is a tremendously expensive item for the working poor. In Wisconsin, on the Badgercare program, 92 or 93 percent of the people had some kind of health insurance coverage, which is very close to universal insurance. I’d like to see the states have more flexibility for spending, but standards must be set high and states must be required to meet that. And if they can’t, then the federal government can step in and micromanage. I say this after four months at the federal level. When I was governor, I could have an idea in the morning and by afternoon someone would be working on it. In Washington, every idea has to be vetted by every division of government. And people at the federal level believe in the status quo. I abhor the status quo because it means you’re really going backward.
Q. What do you see being done for child care for the working poor, who may have access to adequate–but not quality–care?
A. This is the age–1 to 4 years–at which you can really have an impact. So what I did was I took $20 million out of one program and said to applicants, “Each one of you will get $2 million to set up the best day-care centers.” I left before I found out how they are doing, but I’m fairly confident that they’re going to be excellent. The federal government won’t pay for that, but what we can do is make sure that standards are high, children are safe and counselors aren’t people who have broken the law. We can encourage states to put more state resources into improving day care so we can get these kids ready for school and give them a safe haven for seven to eight hours a day.
Q. Do you think marriage incentives are the way to encourage strong families?
A. I’m much more interested in renovating the disincentive for marriage. Others in the administration don’t feel like I do, but I don’t think it’s my job to require marriage as a prerequisite for anything.
———-
An edited transcript.
