In contemporary US politics, the very ideological debates that characterized the era of welfare reform have lost their focus for want of a critical mass. Indeed, the number of welfare recipients has shrunk tremendously, from a peak of 5 million families in 1994 to 1.7 million in 2013 (Falk, 2016). In this context, it has been more difficult for conservatives to gain any real public traction from attacking lazy welfare recipients when there are so few of them left. This explains why the battleground for conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) moved away from welfare politics to food stamps.

On the Obama administration's side, neither Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) nor the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was treated as a priority. Instead, the administration focused on defending and enforcing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), expanding tax cuts for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits. The White House was also engaged in deficitreduction talks with a Republican Congress eager to deliver on their promise to cut the federal government budget. Republicans almost completely controlled the terms of the debate. The administration was cornered into a defensive position. Their overall priority was to protect health-care reform.

The TANF stalemate

Although TANF was initially considered a success on both sides of the political spectrum because of rising employment rates and plummeting welfare caseloads, several issues have emerged since the early 2000s. The first problem is related to state flexibility and lack of accountability over the use of federal dollars. States have increasingly used the funds to fill their budget holes. They have also used federal dollars for other programs (adoption, child welfare) instead of spending money on cash assistance and work support. In 2014, states spent only 26% of their TANF funds on basic assistance for families, compared with 70% in 1996 (Schott et al, 2015). Second, the sheer variation and heterogeneity of state policies means that it has become extremely difficult to monitor the implementation of TANF across the country (Weaver, 2011). In addition, benefit levels vary widely across states, with the highest found in the North and the lowest found in the South (Falk, 2014).