Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, September 29, 1994                   TAG: 9410150005
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-15   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: MARK ROBERT RANK
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long

MUSICAL CHAIRS

Virtually all of the political discussion (from both parties) assumes that the welfare system and its recipients are the cause of the problem. Yet it's poverty that forces a wide range of people to turn to welfare programs such as food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid and SSI.

The reasons underlying poverty have little to do with counterproductive attitudes among welfare recipients, with a welfare system that is supposedly too generous, or even with a lack of skills and education. Rather, poverty is largely due to the inability of our economic, social and political systems to provide decent opportunities for all of our citizens.

An analogy illustrates this point and the shift in thinking that is needed to confront the issue of welfare reform. In this country we are playing a large-scale version of the game of musical chairs. The key to this analogy is whether we choose to analyze the losers of the game, or the game itself.

Let's imagine eight chairs and 10 players. The players begin to circle around the chairs until the music stops. Who fails to find a chair? If we focus on the winners and losers of the game, some combination of luck and skill will be involved. In all likelihood, the losers will be those in an unfavorable position when the music stops, somewhat slower, less agile, and so on. In one sense, these are appropriately cited as the reasons for losing the game.

However, if we focus on the game itself, it's quite clear that given only eight chairs, two players are bound to lose. Even if every player were suddenly to double his or her speed and agility, there would be two without chairs. It really doesn't matter what the loser's characteristics are.

This musical-chairs analogy can be applied to what has been occurring in America economically, socially and politically. Given that there's unemployment which translates into a shortage of work; given that we are producing more and more low-paying jobs lacking benefits; given that countless inner-city and rural communities have been devastated by economic restructuring; given that there is a scarcity of affordable child care; given that people become ill and disabled: Someone is going to lose.

The losers generally will be those who are lacking in resources, skills and education, and therefore cannot compete as effectively as their counterparts who have acquired greater skills and education. In one sense we can focus on these deficits, such as a lack of education, as the reasons for why individuals are poor and on welfare.

Yet if we focus on the game itself, then the causes of poverty and welfare use move from the individual's lack of skills or education to the fact that the economy produces unemployment, creates low-paying jobs, bypasses low-income communities, lacks affordable child care, or does not provide for those who can no longer participate economically due to an illness. These then become the more fundamental reasons for why people are seeking welfare in America.

When we focus solely on personal characteristics, such as education, we can shuffle individual people up or down in terms of their being more likely to find a job, but we're still going to have somebody lose out if there aren't enough decent-paying jobs to go around. In short, we're playing a game of musical chairs in this country with 10 players but only eight chairs.

This is precisely why we never seem to solve the problem of welfare in the United States, and why we return to the subject year after year, decade after decade. The issue of welfare reform serves as a smokescreen to avoid admitting that, while there are a number of positive aspects about our free-market capitalist system, there is a downside - poverty and economic vulnerability. As a result, the need for public-assistance programs continues today and undoubtedly into the future, regardless of all the welfare reform in the world.

Meanwhile, politicians will debate in the upcoming weeks the amounts to be spent on the programs, time limits, family caps, and so on. Pushed to the background are the sizable numbers of Americans in dire circumstances. We can choose to address their need through constructive assistance; we can choose to ignore them; we can choose to punish those who seek help. Regardless, the need will continue. There simply are not enough chairs for all who are playing the game.

The remedy? A good place for us to start is to challenge those candidates running for office to confront and attack the disease rather than merely the symptoms. If we are seriously interested in the catch-all phrase of "ending welfare as we know it," such a change will occur only when we begin to alter the game itself, rather than simply those who lose out at it.

Mark Robert Rank, an associate professor of social work at Washington University in St. Louis, is author of "Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America."