In the unlikely event that you are an assiduous reader of this blog, you know that I’m a big fan of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that drastically reduced welfare dependency in the U.S.—and welfare dependency really is a thing—or it really was—regardless of what “passionate” liberals want you to think.1 But, as it turns out, there was just a little bit too much “flexibility” in the program— “block grant” provisions supposedly allowing states freedom to experiment and develop new ways of reducing poverty—which in the great state of Mississippi amounted to handing out tens of millions of dollars to various connected big shots. Well, they sure weren’t poor, were they?
The New York Times has the story,2 or at least some of it: Mississippi Welfare Scandal Spreads Well Beyond Brett Favre, although Brett himself scored $5 million for a volleyball stadium so that his daughter could spike in style at the University of Southern Mississippi. The scandal, which has been percolating through the Magnolia State for two years, could have led to the diversion of as much as $94 million as John Davis, former executive director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services, treated the welfare program as his own personal slush fund.
The next time you hear “Paul Ryan Republicans”, if such still exist, yapping it up about the glory of block grants, remember the tale of the Brett Favre Memorial Volleyball Center, built with welfare funds.
1. Both liberals and conservatives “misunderstood” welfare—misunderstood it because they wanted to. Conservatives wanted to believe that everyone on welfare was lazy and shiftless; liberals felt that it was wrong to be mean to poor people. In fact, welfare mostly “worked”. Eighty percent of the recipients of the old AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) had experienced a financial crisis of some sort, but managed to recover and got off welfare as quickly as they could, in two years or less. But 20% liked being on welfare and stayed on it as long as they could. This 20% ate up 80% of the program’s costs.
2. The Times credits Mississippi Today as doing the most to develop the story.
