Judge Upholds State’s 1.3% Welfare Cutback : Aid: Reduction does not cause undue hardship, court rules, paving way for 2.7% cut in September.

In a decision that could make it easier for states that want to cut government aid to the poor, federal District Judge David Levi ruled Thursday that California’s recent welfare reductions do not violate federal law by causing the needy undue hardship.

California Health and Welfare Secretary Russell Gould said the Sacramento judge’s order allows December’s 1.3% cut in welfare benefits to remain in effect and paves the way for an additional 2.7% reduction recently approved by the Legislature to take effect in September.

Under the December cutback, monthly grants dropped from $633 to $624 for a mother with two children who receives benefits under Aid to Families With Dependent Children program. The September reduction will cut it to $607.

“This is a major victory not only for California but for the other states who are really trying to fix a broken system,” Gould said. “The basic premise is that you are not barred from making reductions in welfare grants so you can use the savings to make other adjustments in the system.”

Advocates for the poor had challenged the December welfare cuts, contending that they threatened needy families with “irreparable injury from hunger, homelessness, illness and exposure to the elements.” The advocates argued that the Bush Administration, which approved the state cutbacks, failed to consider this human element when it decided in October that the reductions could go into effect. The state’s attempt to justify the cuts by saying that the loss in income would provide adult recipients with an incentive to go to work made no provisions for disabled people who could not work, they said.

In a 39-page decision, Levi held that it is in the public interest for states to experiment with the welfare program and that California’s cuts were not severe enough to cause undue hardship to any recipients, including those who are disabled.

“This benefit cut, while serious for AFDC recipients, is not Draconian,” Levi wrote.

Clare Pastore, staff attorney for the Western Center on Law & Poverty Inc., said the decision would be appealed, but she acknowledged that in the meantime it could serve as encouragement for other states to consider welfare reductions.

“We are absolutely stunned that he did not do anything for those people,” she said of Levi’s ruling removing the Americans With Disabilities Act as a potential barrier to welfare cuts.