Cutting Till It Hurts

Gov. George Deukmejian has proposed a slowdown in implementing the state’s imaginative welfare-reform program, GAIN. That would be a serious mistake, with negative consequences extending beyond the borders of the state.

The governor’s proposed restraints are in response to spending limits imposed by the Gann amendment, which, through flawed formulas, is threatening to cripple major state services--not just welfare reform. There are more appropriate responses to the Gann limits, not least of which is a strong commitment to lift its spending ceilings.

Greater Avenues for Independence--GAIN--was enacted in 1986 on the initiative of former Assemblyman Art Agnos, now mayor of San Francisco, and Deukmejian. It has national importance as a model for legislation making its way through Congress.

Under California’s plan, the program was to be phased in over two years. At last count, 37,000 people were enrolled in 18 of the state’s counties, with plans to extend the program to all counties and to enroll more than 200,000 by next September. Under cutbacks proposed in next year’s budget, the governor would reduce that to 148,000.

GAIN has proved more expensive than anticipated when the law was adopted. The principal reason is that a far greater percentage of welfare persons have been found to require remedial education before they can benefit from job training and enter the job market. Recent testing has shown that 67% need remedial work in academic fundamentals rather than 20%, the earlier estimate. There is no disagreement, however, on the merits of the program or the importance of proceeding. The governor remains committed to GAIN, as does a majority in the Legislature.

A cutback now would have a bruising effect on the counties that have not yet been phased in, among them Los Angeles--with more than one-third of the state’s welfare families--Orange, San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa.

To argue that California cannot afford welfare reform is to argue that no state can afford it. California has the resources to meet this need. A more valid economic question is how any state can afford not to implement reform, with the enormous advantages flowing from the long-term economic and social consequences of helping welfare recipients to productive, self-supporting lives.