Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, June 19, 1994 TAG: 9406240010
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Does it go far enough? Well, it goes farther than any reform proposed by preceding conservative presidents. It puts a two-year lifetime limit on cash benefits after age 18 for women born after 1971. Those in that group who are still on welfare then would have to work - either in jobs they find on their own or in minimum-wage jobs subsidized by the federal government.
Critics are right in predicting that the reforms won't end welfare. But the Clinton plan may do as much as the country is willing now to pay for. Everyone should understand one thing: Breaking the cycle of dependency fostered by the failed welfare system will be more expensive in the short run than continuing the status quo. Reform will take bucks: $9.3 billion over five years in the president's proposal, for job training, child care, tracking the status of recipients, subsidizing jobs. If anything, the spending he has proposed is not enough.
The Clinton plan's "make-'em- work" component is perhaps the most soul- satisfying for taxpayers, but it by no means guarantees success. The problem: Public job-training programs aren't very effective. A new study of one of the nation's most successful job-training programs for welfare recipients, in Riverside, Calif., illustrates the limitations. After three years, participants were earning 40 percent more than a comparable group without training. Even at that, however, their average earnings were $3,600 a year. Forty-one percent of the women remained on welfare.
Clinton's reforms would mandate federally subsidized jobs for those who hadn't found work - but the results of the Riverside program suggest there might be a need for a lot of subsidies.
More effective than job training and subsidized jobs in the long run would be to increase the incentives and eliminate the disincentives for giving up welfare checks in favor of private-sector jobs.
Entry-level employment is overwhelmingly low-paying and often without benefits. Thus, earned-income tax credits are under-appreciated and still under-used as an incentive to tip the scales in favor of work. Tax breaks for employers who provide training and jobs for welfare recipients ought to be considered. And welfare recipients must be allowed to keep a portion of their benefits after they go to work, to sustain the employment incentive.
By the same token, major improvement in the quantity and quality of child care, together with national health-care reform, are essential elements of real welfare reform. How many women would go to work without adequate care for their children, or give up Medicaid coverage for themselves and their kids to take a job without health insurance?
For a certain group of recipients, the dole has become a way of life, and they must be heaved onto their feet if they are ever to stand on their own. But reformers must remember that many more use welfare benefits as they were intended, as temporary help to get through crises. Some will make the transition to independence through their own ability, determination and luck. Others won't, without help and a reconfiguration of incentives.
One of the best elements of Clinton's proposal is its emphasis on reducing teen pregnancy and targeting fathers to share responsibility for out-of-wedlock births. Perhaps the message - that having a baby before you can support yourself is a poverty trap for you and your children - will carry more impact if young women can't assume they can live off welfare, and if young men are required to help pay for their children's upbringing.
by CNB