President Sets Dec. 1 Deadline to Devise Strategy on Welfare

President Reagan’s call for a comprehensive review of welfare comes at a time when many members of Congress--liberals and conservatives alike--also are considering new approaches to end what they see as the system’s adverse impact on poor families.

Reagan, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, gave his White House staff until Dec. 1 to devise “a strategy for immediate action to meet the financial, educational, social and safety concerns of poor families.” Some critics promptly questioned whether he intends to use the study simply to slash welfare spending.

House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) joked that the President is probably still looking for the famous “welfare queen” of the 1960s, who reportedly became rich by collecting multiple benefits.

Similarly, Rep. Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio) charged that Reagan has a “very, very stereotyped view” of welfare recipients, while Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), a member of a House subcommittee on public assistance, said he was disappointed that the study would be headed by Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, a critic of welfare programs.

Growing Effort Seen

At the same time, the President’s initiative was viewed as part of a growing effort by politicians of all persuasions to grapple with welfare’s apparent relationship to the disintegration of poor black families, rising teen-age pregnancy rates and the staggering numbers of poor children who grow up doomed to depend on federal assistance all their lives.

A few skeptics suggested that the current initiative might suffer the same fate as welfare reform proposals put forth by Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter, all of which were quickly forgotten.

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), a leading advocate of welfare reform for more than 20 years, said he expects “nothing more than the same tireless tinkering.”

But many others suggested that a massive overhaul of welfare may now be possible because of a dramatic change in the political climate that allows critics of the system to speak up without being branded as anti-poor or racist. They noted also that welfare reform is now more popular because it is seen as pro-family.

Contributing to this consensus have been a number of developments--a recent “CBS News” special report on the cycle of teen-age pregnancies among young black women; a new book entitled “Family and Nation” by Moynihan, and a growing number of black leaders such as Harvard economist Glenn Loury who advocate more “bootstrap” programs and less traditional welfare.

Administration officials indicated that the President has no specific approach in mind for reforming the welfare system. Welfare spending has continued to grow under Reagan, despite efforts to trim back the programs--including some changes that knocked 442,000 families off the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program during his first term.

“What the President is saying is that we need a clean, fresh look at the 61 federal programs that were geared to assist low-income people,” one senior White House official said. “We need to look at why it is that we’ve spent all this money, and we’ve got all these programs, and we’ve still got 14.4% of the American population below the poverty level.”

In Congress, however, many of the current proposals for welfare reform would require additional federal spending. The most comprehensive of these proposals, co-authored by Moynihan and Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), would establish a minimum benefit in all states and provide incentives for recipients to seek job training.

Some advocates of welfare reform argue that additional expenditures for job training and child care that help recipients break the cycle of dependency on welfare will save money in the long run.

Currently, a House-Senate conference committee is considering legislation requiring all states to provide Aid to Families with Dependent Children to two-parent households. Half of the states now provide AFDC only to one-parent households--a provision that is viewed as a disincentive to marriage among poor people.