Was the welfare act of 1996 a success or disaster?

How you answer that question depends much on your political point of view.  A 2006 article by Ron Haskins, published by the conservative Brookings Institute, declared the 1996 welfare reforms a success.  Haskins pointed to evidence such as a 60% decline in the welfare caseload by 2004 as a result of the 1996 reforms.  He also pointed to studies indicating that 60 to 80% of adults leaving welfare are gainfully employed.

Meanwhile, liberal writers such as Peter Edelman and Barbara Ehrenreich, writing in the Washington Post (December 6, 2009), have said that welfare reform failed, because the number of those living in poverty in America rose in the years following welfare reform.  The lack of access to welfare contributed to that rise in poverty, they argue.  It's harder for people to get cash assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which is what welfare was renamed).  But dependence on food stamps doubled in the years after Clinton left office.

So "success" or "disaster" will depend on whether viewed through a conservative or liberal lens.

Y=-121/7+11/7x i think this may be wrong

the correct answer is d: "party organizers, volunteers, voters, and elected officials."

party organizers: individuals responsible for designing strategies in order to better execute the political campaign. this includes the candidate's public relations. volunteers: individuals responsible for raising awareness regarding the candidates running for office.voters: individuals who are convinced by volunteers that a particular candidate is the best option.elected officials: winning candidate and his elected team are a product of a successful political campaign.