Welfare Reform Involves Real People : * State Officials Should Keep in Mind That Whatever They Decide Affects Individuals

It’s ironic, and yet understandable, that the cry for welfare reform seems strongest during times when it is most needed. That’s partly because government and individuals alike have a difficult time paying bills during a recession, and partly because welfare is an easier target for demagogues when times are hard.

It’s important to remember, however, that welfare isn’t just statistics. It’s a compilation of individuals who need help, people who are facing a tough job market and difficult personal circumstances. Most need only temporary help.

Take, for example, the family of Art and Lynette Silva of Buena Park, who were interviewed as part of a series of articles on welfare in Orange County by Times reporter Carla Rivera. After Art Silva was laid off from his warehouse job, the couple were homeless for a time. Eventually, they rented a house from relatives, but were forced to sell the family car to buy food and diapers; Silva went to subsequent job interviews on a bicycle. They finally qualified for welfare while Silva continues to seek work--not an easy task in this economy. They have no idea how they would manage if benefits drop below present levels. Would it benefit anyone--least of all their children--if they end up homeless again?

Or talk to Maria Raudales of Anaheim, who, at 17, has two children, no high school diploma and no job prospects. What she needs is help in finishing her education, child care and job training. Nor is Raudales atypical. Study after study shows a strong correlation between teen pregnancies and the need for continuing public assistance. Isn’t it better to help her get on her own two feet?

Gov. Pete Wilson has proposed a reform initiative that contains several good provisions to help recipients get off welfare. Other provisions, however, are merely punitive. If passed, the initiative would lock both the good and bad points into the state Constitution and hamper the state’s ability to respond to future situations. Far better for the Legislature to address the issue seriously.

In confronting welfare costs, however, Wilson and the Legislature should keep in mind that people with names and faces will be affected by whatever they do. When times are rough, it’s tempting to institute short-term savings by cutting benefits across the board. But the questions must be asked: Who, exactly, are these people? How will the things done now decrease the need for social welfare programs to support them in the future? Or will “reforms” merely be penny-wise and pound-foolish?