It's been a wild ride in the welfare wars of 2002. The 1996 welfare reform law which ended the 60-year entitlement to cash assistance to poor mothers with children expires this year and must be renewed by Congress.

Despite the self-congratulation of Washington elites and some of the mainstream press, the record since 1996 gives nothing to cheer about. The new welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), did put an end to a program that everyone - including welfare parents - knew would never bring about an end to poverty. But the authors of welfare reform, including Democratic President Bill Clinton, managed to make welfare much worse.

TANF requires most parents to go to work regardless of their family circumstances and imposes a lifetime limit on benefits of 60 months (many states have adopted shorter limits). The "work-first" model of the new welfare system typically denies access to education and training that might allow low-income parents to get living-wage jobs. And the biggest cuts in the 1996 law came at the expense of the most vulnerable people: most recent legal immigrants are now not eligible for cash welfare, food stamps, health coverage, or SSI.

What's the result? Since 1996, welfare caseloads nationwide have decreased by over 50%. Welfare parents who left welfare for jobs typically earn $7 per hour, have no health insurance, sick leave or parental leave and few opportunities for education or training. As many as one-third of those who left did not leave for work at all, and many report increased hardship after exiting the rolls, including high rates of hunger and homelessness.

Volumes of research on the effects of welfare reform 1996-style have demonstrated that, while it has been successful in shrinking caseloads, poverty remains high - and has actually increased among single working mothers, the population most affected by changes in welfare policy. One in four poor children in America lives in an immigrant-headed household and, in large part because of their lack of access to the safety net, immigrant families are faring particularly badly across a range of indicators.

Welfare reform has unleashed a wave of "lawlessness" at welfare offices. It is difficult or impossible for poor families to get even short-term emergency help when they experience a crisis like domestic violence or the loss of a job. In one notorious case, the State of Oregon told applicants to go "dumpster diving." And, as has been the case throughout American history, "states rights" has resulted in discrimination against people of color in access to services and benefits.

Still, there is a silver lining in the cloud of welfare reform. Thanks in large part to the heroic efforts of grassroots groups of low-income families and their allies, some states did adopt progressive policies, including increased access to education and training, higher benefit levels, expanded childcare, transportation and health care, and humane immigrant and time limit policies.

One would think that this record would result in efforts to build on the model approaches that now exist and to outlaw the worst practices. But, earlier this spring, in a remarkable (and somewhat successful) effort to change the subject, President Bush proposed a welfare reform plan that does just the opposite. His plan massively increases work requirements (to the extent that even the nation's Governors are howling in protest), and fails to provide a dime for childcare or other work supports. The Bush plan also manages to reduce the meager education and training opportunities now available to poor parents and creates a massive new "super-waiver" program that would allow states to waive nearly any provision of federal law governing low-income programs.

Yet, the worst thing about the Administration's plan is what it does not do: there is nothing in the plan to reduce poverty; nothing to help millions of struggling low-wage workers; nothing to ensure fair play for immigrants; and nothing to address welfare time limits that are expiring in many states this year. The Republican House of Representatives has rubber-stamped the President's proposal on a party-line vote, sending it to the Senate where the real debate has begun.

Unfortunately, a cadre of "moderate Democrats" affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman, has joined the President. They have embraced the higher work requirements and seem unwilling to seriously address the problem of poverty. Some of these Democrats have gone so far right on welfare that a number of Republican Senators, including Olympia Snowe and Orrin Hatch, have actually found themselves significantly to the left of the DLC Democrats.

Still, all the news is not bad. Senators Kennedy, Wellstone, Corzine and 19 others have laid out a progressive vision for welfare reform that would increase access to education and training, stop the time limits for low-wage workers, ensure fair treatment for immigrants, and invest in supports such as child care. And many of their ideas may well prevail.

The great irony of the 1996 welfare law is that, because it was such a total victory for conservatives, progressives now have all the ideas and the energy to fight back. Grassroots groups led by low-income people are actually winning a whole series of battles around the country - on living wages, health care, education and training, and more. These provide a solid foundation for reconstructing humane national anti-poverty policies. Some of these ideas - such as paid leave for low-income working mothers, public job creation, expanded education and training opportunities, and fair treatment for immigrants - are very likely to be incorporated into the final welfare bill this year.

We won't achieve a new paradigm on poverty in 2002—largely because Washington policy elites are stuck in the tired welfare-bashing debates of the 1990s; but these incremental gains will provide a platform of ideas, a constituency, and a set of messages for the long-term fight for economic justice.

Deepak Bhargava is the Director of the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support.