Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 2, 1995 TAG: 9503020034
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Every session must have its big issue. This year it was welfare reform, dovetailing the national big issue of the moment. When they arrived Jan. 11 in Richmond, Democrats weren't sure what to do about Allen's tax-cut bombshell. I have it on high authority their pollster urged them to find a seat on the bandwagon.
Had no spending cuts in the here and now been required to make that happen, it's likely some form of tax relief would have passed. But when word spread of cuts in higher education, etc., the ground shifted. Members heard from plenty of people wanting to see spending preserved, but from precious few demanding their taxes be cut. But not many legislators outside the Black Caucus wanted to go home without seeming to get tough on welfare.
When people talk about reforming welfare, they generally mean making able-bodied women receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children go to work. In 1970, the monthly average of AFDC recipients in Virginia was 87,000. In 1994, it was 192,000. Had this increased only with the growth in population, it would have been about 60,000 less, so a dynamic does seem at work here of welfare begetting more welfare. The cost of AFDC in Virginia rose from $45 million in 1970 to $231 million in 1994.
Of course, AFDC represents only a small part of the total picture. According to the governor's welfare-reform commission, $4.2 billion was spent in Virginia in 1994 on all programs administered by the state to assist the poor. While this figure includes food stamps, now running at $500 million a year, it doesn't count federal housing subsidies or other federal programs flowing outside state administration, such as Supplemental Security Income. Nor does it include anything in the categories of education and law enforcement.
Most of this is beyond the scope of the bill just passed, which aims at long-term welfare moms not covered by various exemptions - perhaps 15,000 in all. It would give them two years to find a job and a year of "transitional" assistance beyond that. It would prohibit the establishment of independent households for minors with babies, granting them benefits only if residing with a parent or guardian. This would seem to take proper aim at a notion said to be widespread: "When my baby comes, I'll get my apartment." The bill would also deny additional payments for those on AFDC who have more children.
With all the media attention on teen mothers, it might be somewhat reassuring to note that only 8 percent of AFDC households in Virginia in 1993 were headed by teen mothers.
We should be realistic about the scope of what's contemplated. Children under 18, women pregnant more than three months and single parents with children under 18 months will be exempt from work requirements. Also, those over 60 or suffering from long-term disability or incapacity. And waivers may be granted in localities where the rate of unemployment is more than 2 percent above the state average. Even in areas of low unemployment, participants unable to obtain jobs in the free market may be granted an extension of benefits provided they accept a public-service job. If all this results in moving 5,000 moms from welfare to real jobs, it will be a miracle.
Why so few? For one thing, AFDC is already a short-term solution for many people. Of those receiving benefits Jan. 1, 1992, 37 percent left welfare at some point over the next 24 months and had not returned. A further 16 percent relinquished benefits at some point and then resumed them. That left slightly less than half receiving AFDC benefits continuously through the entire two years. The fact that so many have recourse to welfare for relatively short periods indicates the system is working better than we give it credit for.
It's doubtful that the management capacity exists in the state welfare system to gear up for a truly dynamic program to move the hard-core poor from the world of welfare to the world of work. Allen's secretary of Health and Human Resources, Kay Coles James, seems a person of considerable ability, enjoying both a broad view of the problem and an equally broad view of the solution. But where is the depth of talent or the money to employ it?
The federal earned-income credit, while subject to fraud, points in the right direction of recognizing that many in our economy cannot sustain a decent standard of living even when fully employed. Under it, people we might describe as the "working poor" can receive a substantial cash payment. They can also qualify for food stamps and even Medicaid. These kinds of incentives are going to be necessary to move large numbers of people off welfare or keep them from getting on in the first place.
The problem, as always, is guarding against abuse. It's a pipe dream to believe government can ever employ enough qualified investigators to assure honest compliance. But we might as well accept the fact that many in our society will need some package of benefits to survive, even if they obtain jobs. A single year of "transitional" assistance for those leaving AFDC is likely to be woefully inadequate.
If a foreign power had tried to design a conspiracy that would weaken and divide the United States, it could hardly have done better than the poverty "industry" we have created. And let's be quick to say many feed at its trough who aren't poor. It is a tragedy which may yet shake the foundations of the republic. The culture of dependency whose wreckage we now contemplate began in earnest less than 30 years ago. In the scope of our history, that's hardly any time at all.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1995
by CNB