In 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore won the presidency by advertising themselves as "New Democrats" from the conservative South, promising not expanded welfare schemes, but to "end welfare as we know it."

It took the Republican midterm landslide in 1994 before they got serious. But finally, in 1996, the Clinton-inspired federal Welfare Reform Act was passed. It set out to end six decades of presumed federal "entitlement" to unlimited cash assistance. In its place, Washington would hand the states lump sums of money based on the number of residents qualified for "assistance," allowing the states flexibility to design their own programs, but with the provision that half those on welfare would be required to go find work.

In some ways, it worked better than anyone expected. The number of families on the newly renamed "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" program quickly plummeted by 60 percent.

Some would argue that the reform -- meant to direct aid to women with children while putting able-bodied men back to work -- had the unfortunate effect of discouraging marriage among recipients, and was further compromised by an ongoing "end-around" that placed many of those men on a different form of "relief."

But the real Trojan horse arrived in the form of an inducement to the states to reduce their welfare rolls by allowing those that did so to reduce work requirements for those still on the dole.

When the act came up for renewal in 2002, Republicans complained the work requirements were not strict enough. Half the recipients were supposed to have found work, but in fact fewer than one-third had done so. Some states "defined as work bed rest, going to a smoking-cessation program, getting a massage, doing an errand with a friend," explains Wade Horn, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services for children and families.

Needless to say, Democrats merely pushed for more day care subsidies. Instead, the 2002 reforms, now going into effect, became "Stage Two" of welfare reform, with the federal government stepping in to say work means work -- there will be new limits on how long taxpayers must pay for mothers to go back to school and get a college degree, all "on Uncle Sam."

This has brought complaints of "federal micromanagement" from such interested parties as Elaine Ryan, deputy executive director of the American Public Human Services Association, which represents government welfare directors.

But while drug addiction counseling, psychiatric analysis and college studies (let alone errand-running and visiting a masseur) are all well and good, many of the Americans whose taxes support welfare have themselves had to schedule such electives around a job that puts food on the table. The notion that there should be some limit to the number of years taxpayers must fund -- for example -- full child care costs plus $517 per month in living expenses so a middle-aged Maine mom can attend college full time, hardly seems unreasonable.

Nearly 2 million American families are still on welfare. The reforms -- and, hopefully, some "tough love" -- continue.

Did Bill Clinton "end welfare as we knew it"? He made a better start than most expected.