Giving People Hope--And a Reason to Work : Clinton throws minimum wage into welfare reform pot

President Clinton won’t be sending welfare reform legislation to Capitol Hill to replace the plan that stalled last year. He will allow House Republicans to take the lead. That’s wise: A new Administration plan probably wouldn’t stand much of a chance anyway in Congress, where the Republicans have the floor, and the podium, now.

However, Clinton is not shying away from a fight on the minimum wage. He is linking welfare reform with a boost in the buying power of the working poor. “If we are serious about welfare reform,” the President said Friday, “then we have a clear obligation to make work attractive and to reward people who are willing to work hard.” It’s a strong argument.

Clinton proposes raising the current minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 over two years. Leaving aside the issue of the amount, it is the gradual phase-in that’s key: Opponents argue that raising the minimum wage is a formula for unemployment, especially among young people; however, a gradual phase-in would enable policy-makers to monitor the effect of marginal minimum wage increases on joblessness. There are studies that support either side in this question.

Congressional Republicans, few of whom favor an increase, stress the threat of lost jobs. Interestingly, California’s Republican governor, Pete Wilson, has not yet taken a position. He may be persuaded to back the increase because a hike is consistent with his long-held emphasis on the value of work, which is outlined today by his Social Services Department director, Eloise Anderson, in the Times Interview on the preceding page. The powerful argument here is that unless America makes working economically advantageous, the motivation to get off the dole will be insufficient.

THE REPUBLICAN PLAN: Now on the table in Washington is the GOP’s proposed Personal Responsibility Act. The debate over it will be conducted under the leadership of Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.), whose subcommittee’s hearings on the measure ended Friday. The bill should build on the elements of reform that have attracted bipartisan support. These include that welfare be temporary; that work be encouraged; that out-of-wedlock births, particularly among teen-agers, be strongly discouraged; that fathers provide for their children.

The legislation would give control of Aid to Families with Dependent Children to the states. Governors, freed from federal mandates, would craft their own welfare programs with funds provided by federal block grants. With this flexibility, innovative governors could produce reforms that work in their states. Of course some governors might be tempted to spend the block-grant funds for other purposes, siphoning off the money that provides the great American social safety net.

The GOP also would freeze block grants at current levels. That provision would hurt recession-hit states like California that now have bloated welfare rolls. If a state’s welfare population grew in hard times, most governors, loath to raise taxes during an economic downturn, would cut benefits. That could hurt poor children more than anyone else. Where’s the public policy imagination? Let’s reduce welfare costs by pressing to increase child support from absentee fathers. Establishing paternity is the obvious first step.

THE WILSON APPROACH: Some poor fathers and mothers want to support their children but lack the skills to get a job and keep it. On that score, Washington Republicans can learn something from Gov. Wilson. His Administration has increased funding for the state workfare program. Greater Avenues to Independence (GAIN) now provides training--and transition from welfare check to paycheck. It works.

Welfare reform, a political rallying cry for years now, has to become more than a slogan. Millions of real people, most of them children, will be deeply affected when welfare is changed. Their parents will be required to work, often at the minimum wage. Congress has to get going, and get it right.