POSC 459 — Social Welfare Politics and Policy · Week 11, Wednesday 4 November 2026
Accessible text version of the Week 11 Wednesday slides — same content in linear order, with no slide-scaling container. Frame: Pierson (1993). Cases: Béland and Waddan (Week 9), Jacobs and Skocpol (Week 10), Howard, Who Cares, chapter 7 (Week 7), and Poverty, Politics and Profit (Monday’s film).
POSC 459 — Social Welfare Politics and Policy Week 11 · Wednesday, November 4
Pierson 1993 · Béland and Waddan · Jacobs and Skocpol · Howard ch. 7 · Monday’s film
1996: Congress ends AFDC
2017: ACA repeal bill fails, 49–51
2025: Film’s tax credit raised 12%, for good
Which has held up better: welfare reform or the ACA?
Béland and Waddan, p. 24 · outside the readings: Senate; CRS
| When | What happened |
|---|---|
| 1986 | Housing tax credit (LIHTC) created |
| 1996 | AFDC ends; TANF begins |
| 2005 | TANF reaches 40% of eligible families (AFDC: 84%) |
| 2010 | ACA signed |
| 2013–14 | Exchanges open; mandate takes effect |
| 2017 | Film airs · repeal fails 49–51 · penalty to $0 |
| 2025 | LIHTC enlarged · TANF grant frozen since 1996 |
Béland and Waddan · Jacobs and Skocpol · outside the readings: CRS, Senate, IRS
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Policy feedback | Laws reshape their own politics |
| Spoils | Benefits worth organizing for |
| Lock-in | Lives built around a program |
| Visibility | Noticed at all? |
| Traceability | Traced to government? |
| Tax expenditure | Spending through the tax code |
| Block grant | Fixed federal sum per state |
Pierson 1993
| Pierson’s term | Ask |
|---|---|
| Spoils | Who gains, and organizes to keep it? |
| Lock-in | What did people build around it? |
| Visibility, traceability | Can people see it, and trace it to Washington? |
Pierson 1993, figure 1, p. 626
| Vouchers | Tax credit | |
|---|---|---|
| Who gets the benefit | Poor families | Developers, investors |
| What the film found | 1 in 4 eligible get housing help | Fewer units, more money; fraud |
Poverty, Politics and Profit (2017)
Béland and Waddan, p. 69 · Week 9
| What | Number |
|---|---|
| Eligible families reached | 84% (1995) → 40% (2005) |
| 2007–09 recession | Unemployment doubled; caseload +13% |
| Block grant | $16.5 billion since 1996 (outside the readings) |
“No impetus to roll back the changes”
Béland and Waddan, pp. 67–68 · CRS IF10036
“Erasure, however, is not the same as counter-argument”
Soss and Schram, pp. 116, 122–123 · open to all for Paper 4
| Who | Gained |
|---|---|
| The uninsured | 26 million more covered |
| Hospitals | Medicaid pays for the uninsured |
| Health industry | 32 million new customers; “winners, on balance” |
Jacobs and Skocpol, chs. 2 and 4
Jacobs and Skocpol, ch. 4, p. 1 · Pierson, p. 622
“front-load benefits and back-load costs” (Pierson, p. 622)
| Provision | What happened |
|---|---|
| Coverage, Medicaid, insurer rules | Still law |
| Mandate penalty | Repeal fails, July 2017; $0 from 2019 |
Jacobs and Skocpol, p. 17 · outside the readings: Senate; IRS
Howard ch. 7, Canvas PDF p. 9 · film
Film · Howard, Canvas PDF p. 11 · Pierson, p. 599
Pierson, p. 620 · film
| Problem | Film |
|---|---|
| Fraud | $34 million taken from 14 Florida projects |
| Cost | Fewer units for 66% more, 1997–2014 |
| Siting | Dallas: 90%+ of family projects in poor areas |
Outside the readings: Congress enlarged it in 2020 and 2025
Film · CRS RS22389
| Made-up bill | Who calls to stop it? | Who never hears? |
|---|---|---|
| A. Cut TANF’s block grant 10% | ||
| B. End the ACA’s Medicaid expansion | ||
| C. End the housing tax credit |
Groups of three · 6 minutes · cite a source
| Welfare reform | The ACA | Tax credit | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who depends | Poor families, no lobby | Patients, hospitals, insurers | Developers, banks |
| Who sees it | The symbol, not the program | Everyone: “ObamaCare” | Almost no one |
| Weak spot | Reach: 84% → 40% | Penalty cut to $0 | Fraud, cost, siting |
The point: The poorest families’ program had the weakest defenders.
Béland and Waddan · Jacobs and Skocpol · Howard · film
| If “held up” means | Stronger case |
|---|---|
| The rules stuck | Welfare reform |
| The benefits survived | The ACA |
The point: Name your meaning in paragraph one.
Béland and Waddan, p. 67 · Jacobs and Skocpol, ch. 4
Pick one as the objection your paper answers
About 600 words · any edition’s pages · prompt on Canvas
| Film moment | Reading |
|---|---|
| Grassley’s seven audits | Pierson, p. 620: no yearly review |
| The Chicago convention | Pierson, p. 599: spoils |
| Farryn: “Nobody wants my voucher” | Howard, Canvas PDF p. 8: most landlords opt out |
Starting pairs, not answers
Fri 11/6, 11:59 p.m.: Paper 4
Mon 11/9: Howard ch. 9; Gilens ch. 3 (skim ch. 5)
Wed 11/11: Veterans Day, no class
Welfare reform stuck: no one defended the benefit
The ACA’s benefits survived; its delayed penalty didn’t
The tax credit: quiet, well defended, growing
Friday: Paper 4 at 11:59