The new policy had a number of enormous problems. First, TANF was not indexed to inflation, so its size is nibbled away every year. Second, TANF block-granted money to the states. This was supposedly to allow for lots of experimentation so that best practices could flourish, but as was obvious at the time, conservative states would "experiment" by
cannibalizing the program. Third, it has no anti-cyclical mechanism — meaning it does not compensate for economic downturns, when there are more people out of work and needing help.
The problems were masked for awhile during the red-hot economy of the mid to late 1990s, but after that, welfare reform failed utterly. Even after the worst economic crisis in 80 years, TANF has
basically ceased to exist in much of the country. Eligibility requirements have gotten so onerous, and benefit levels
so miserly, that many poor people
haven't even heard of the program, or think it was abolished.
AFDC did have some flaws, no doubt. But it was a modest program that put money into the hands of people who needed it: the very poor, most of them children. In the 15 years after TANF passed, the fraction of Americans living in extreme poverty increased 150 percent. (We should also note that it was argued for on explicitly racist grounds.)
Welfare reform is not just something for browbeating Hillary Clinton. It's a directly relevant issue for millions of the most hard-up Americans. Furthermore, the political context Clinton will face if she is elected president is likely to be almost identical to that of her husband in 1996: a Republican Congress, eager to slash government spending to make budget headroom for tax cuts for the rich. Only this one will be far more conservative than 20 years ago.
And as
David Brooks writes, GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio wants to block-grant basically the entire welfare state. The grotesque failure of TANF might as well be proof of concept for the right — kicking the very poor is basically
what they got in the game for.