A Good Place to Begin the Welfare Debate : Clinton puts a promising reform plan on the table

President Clinton wants to strike a tough-love bargain with young welfare mothers. Go to school or work at a government-subsidized job and get aid as long as it is needed. Refuse to do so and lose assistance after two years. This demanding approach--if properly funded and carefully monitored--has the beginnings of a pretty good deal for both welfare mothers and taxpayers.

Because Washington can’t afford to train all 5 million welfare recipients and put them to work at once, the Administration targets young parents born after 1971. This approach centers on the recipients who otherwise normally would spend much of their lives on welfare.

The Administration would spend $9.3 billion over five years for the job training, child care, health care and government jobs of last resort. Much of that money would be diverted from aid to poor, elderly or disabled immigrants who though not citizens are here legally. We hope the California congressional delegation will press for less punitive financing.

The Deadline: “Two years and off the dole” would motivate young parents. But this deadline--reasonable for the best-educated and most ambitious welfare recipients--would unfairly penalize illiterate and unskilled mothers, who need more time to become employable. Rather than extend the deadline, Congress should allow states to tailor timetables to local employment situations.

The Work: Obviously, there will not be enough jobs available in the private sector, so government must provide some subsidized jobs. Washington must also guarantee health care to ensure that recipients who go to work are not punished with a loss of medical coverage for their children, a major benefit of being on welfare. The Clinton plan provides child care for participants during their training and their first year on the job. That’s fine as far as it goes, which isn’t far. What would happen to parents stuck in minimum-wage jobs and unable to pay for adequate child care?

Deadbeat Dads (and a Few Moms):

The Clinton plan would require hospitals, and women who want welfare, to establish paternity at birth. Those fathers who did not support their children would be subject to reasonable punishments, such as loss of wages and suspension of professional, occupational and driver’s licenses. This is an improvement over past attempts at welfare reform that pressured mothers but let fathers off the hook.

President Clinton warns that in 10 years more than half of all children will be born to unwed mothers unless current trends are reversed. To discourage teen-age pregnancy the Administration would fund prevention programs and teen-age mothers would be required to live with their parents and stay in school. Good.

The Pay-Off: California’s Greater Avenues to Independence (GAIN) proves that taxpayers can benefit from welfare reform that truly works. In Riverside County, which has the best of the state’s county-based workfare programs, a $1 public investment yields an impressive $2.84 return and increased earnings for recipients.

Washington may not tackle welfare reform this year before members of Congress rush home to campaign for reelection. Given those political realities, President Clinton could have dragged his feet on welfare while dealing with the congressional hurdles faced by his health care reform. He did not. He put on the table a tough plan that is a good place for Republicans and Democrats to start the debate.