Wilson Attacks Court Ruling on Welfare Cuts : Social services: Reforms are in danger, he and other officials claim. Advocates for the poor say they are misinterpreting the decision striking down cutbacks.

The Wilson Administration clashed with advocacy groups for the poor Thursday, claiming that a federal court decision striking down welfare cuts in 1992 could also destroy reforms that provide incentives for adults on welfare to go to work.

In a three-pronged attack on the ruling, Gov. Pete Wilson, Finance Director Russell Gould and Department of Social Services Director Eloise Anderson separately complained that the court decision, if upheld, would wipe out a four-year bipartisan effort to insert a work ethic into California’s welfare system.

“I’m just sort of shocked,” Anderson said. The court ruling “destroys the benefits that help (welfare recipients) to have a better way of life and to join the mainstream and to be treated like every other American is treated.”

In a 2-1 opinion, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco held Wednesday that millions of dollars in California welfare cuts were invalid because government officials had never considered the hardship they could impose on poor families.

The court criticized the George Bush Administration for approving the reductions in 1992 without considering evidence provided by advocates for the poor that showed that the cuts could cause homelessness and other problems for those on government aid.

Wilson, contending Thursday that the court ruling would also affect welfare reforms that required federal approval, accused the court of encouraging welfare dependency by “robbing more than 50,000 families of the dignity, benefits and community acceptance that comes with working.”

At risk, Wilson said, are reforms that encourage work by allowing recipients to keep more of what they earn before deductions are made in cash grants that they receive from Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the federal-state program commonly called welfare.

Also in jeopardy, the governor said, are reforms that expand child-care services for AFDC families with a working parent; allow families to build up savings, and provide cash incentives for teen-age recipients to stay in school.

But advocates for the poor, who had filed the lawsuit challenging the legality of the welfare cuts, insisted that the Administration had misinterpreted the ruling, which they said made no references to any reforms.

“There is nothing in the court order that requires the state to undo the positive welfare reform efforts that have been enacted over the last few years to help families,” said Casey McKeever, an attorney for the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “We think they (Administration officials) are clearly wrong.”

He said the only way the reforms could be affected is if Wilson moves to repeal them to free up revenue that may be needed to restore the welfare cuts.

In the last four years, Wilson and the Legislature have approved a series of welfare cuts that reduced the maximum cash benefits for a typical family of three from $694 a month to $593. Although the court’s ruling looked specifically at cuts in 1992, it could have an impact on welfare reductions that have been made in the last three years. These cuts total about $125 million to $130 million, according a legislative estimate.

On Thursday, officials in the Administration said they still did not know what action they will take to challenge the ruling or what impact it will have on the state’s beleaguered finances if it is upheld.

Gould said the decision could be one factor that triggers deep cuts in all services.