Moving Welfare to Near the Top of the List : Clinton should seize the moment in dealing with this issue

Welfare isn’t working as well as it should. Too many poor women and their children use this subsidy as a permanent means of support. That isn’t what it was intended for, and President Clinton is trying to fix the problem by requiring poor parents to go to work.

The Clinton team leans toward granting benefits for only two years before requiring recipients to get jobs. Though sound in theory, that would pose a major national challenge: Where are those jobs to be found?

Millions of well-educated and trained Americans are out of work in California and other states. Employers surely would give the nod to these people before hiring most welfare recipients, particularly those without training and job histories. Washington may need to provide incentives for employers to hire from welfare rolls, but without replacing workers who have never depended on government relief of this sort.

Work must be worth it financially. Washington should follow California’s lead in allowing welfare recipients who work to keep government-funded medical benefits and more of their job income. Increases in the minimum wage and the federal earned income tax credit also would go far in boosting working parents out of poverty.

Recipients who didn’t find private-sector jobs would be expected to work at government community-service jobs. Cost to taxpayers is a major obstacle, however. And even if Congress finds the money, public workers and their unions would demand job protections that might leave little for welfare recipients to do.

Many welfare mothers, at least one out of three, need schooling to prepare for work. California’s successful Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program provides education, training and counseling that emphasize getting a job. The mothers also get child-care subsidies so they do not have to choose between work and proper care for their children. This combination is working, but it takes time and that costs money. Washington couldn’t afford to implement GAIN nationwide without tampering with seemingly untouchable entitlements like Social Security benefits; Congress might agree to a less costly incremental approach.

Prevention--keeping families from going on relief in the first place--is under discussion too. Teen-age parents are particularly vulnerable; the majority of long-time welfare mothers had their first baby while teen-agers. When they get on welfare, they usually gain the freedom to leave home. To discourage such early independence, Clinton’s task force may recommend that welfare mothers under 18 continue to live with parents. That would provide some adult supervision.

Two states, New Jersey and Georgia, have eliminated additional benefits for children born to parents on welfare. In those families, mothers must take from one child to provide for another. The restrictions are too recent to offer Washington much data to learn from, but the approach seems punitive.

No welfare reform should let off the hook those men who are fathers in name only. Washington must try harder to collect child support from these “deadbeat dads.”

Nearly 4.5 million Americans, primarily poor children and their single mothers, depend on welfare. Most need this help only temporarily, but as many as one-third are long-term recipients. The escalating debate over how to encourage initiative without hurting poor children is helpful. The White House should capitalize on the national momentum and push welfare to near the top of a crowded agenda.