Welfare reform in the 1990s worked, precisely because it emphasized work. We seem to have forgotten that – and forgotten the thousands and thousands of families liberated from crushing dependency. Welfare programs have largely abandoned work and education requirements.

And now, two sociologists are telling lawmakers that the way to help families in need is to increase benefits and further decrease any requirements and accountability.

“In a new book due out Tuesday, titled ‘$2 a Day,’ Kathryn Edin and H. Luke Shaefer say most states have cut welfare payments over the last 20 years,” the Washington Times reports. “They argue a boost in one welfare program, known officially as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), could help break the cycle of unemployment and get would-be workers into the labor force.”

The authors urge an increase in TANF, and the creation of a “cash assistance” program with no strings attached. They claim this will make people more likely to find work.

Let’s look at both the premises and the claims.

First, the authors cite the figure of “$2 Per Day” as the amount some families are forced to live on. But that’s misleading. Food stamps alone – which carry no requirements other than means-testing – count for far more than that. A family of four is eligible for up to $649 per month through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Next, the authors claim that states have cut welfare over the last two decades. That, too, is false.

“The fastest growing category in many state budgets? It’s not education,” the Heritage Foundation reports. “It’s not infrastructure. It’s welfare spending.”

Part of the increase is due to increased eligibility; following the financial crisis of 2008, many states and federal programs expanded their eligibility requirements. Those have stayed wider, meaning that many more Americans can and do receive benefits.

Now let’s examine the authors’ claims. Increasing cash handouts will decrease dependency, they say.

Based on what? Well, the authors offer no proof – no specific examples of programs where increasing cash payments for not working resulted in more people getting jobs.

Instead, they rely on an article of faith – that many people who want to work would, if only they had a little more cash for child care and car repairs and the like.

That’s true – the working poor and the want-to-be-working poor face many obstacles. But there are better ways to address those very real problems than checks mailed with no accountability.

Do all of these arguments sound familiar? They should – we discussed all of these back in the 1990s. And the measures we adopted then proved very effective. The Brookings Institute studied welfare reform at the 10-year mark in 2006.

It found “the caseload declined about 60 percent, a decline that is without precedent. The percentage of U.S. children on welfare is now lower than it has been since at least 1970.”

That was then, this is now. The welfare rolls are growing.

We know how to help families. And it’s not by discouraging work and responsibility.