State Budget Shortfall and Welfare Reform

The Times’ editorial of April 18 regarding Gov. Pete Wilson’s budget proposal states that it “now anticipates a $1.6-billion shortfall in state revenues,” a drop-off which, if true, would lead readers to believe that California’s economy took a nose-dive overnight. Revenues have not fallen short by $1.6 billion; to date, they have come in slightly above the forecast. Through the end of March, the state’s cash receipts were $330 million higher than had been projected, reflecting a continuing economic recovery.

The issue of the $1.6 billion regards budgeted savings that have been put at risk because of President Clinton’s veto of welfare reform legislation earlier this year. The president’s veto has threatened not only the welfare reforms that Gov. Wilson has proposed for the coming fiscal year, but also the actions that the state Legislature has already approved on a bipartisan basis in the past two years to control the growth of entitlement spending. The failure to have welfare reform signed into law has saddled policymakers in Sacramento and other state capitals with growing--and unnecessary--burdens.

CRAIG L. BROWN, Director

Department of Finance

Sacramento

* Re “Welfare Reform vs. Politics,” editorial April 16:

The Times gives Wilson far too much credit for his “welfare redesign” program. While the elimination of the distinction between one- and two-parent families is commendable, its significance should not be exaggerated, since many two-parent families are already eligible for aid.

Far more significant is the program’s acceptance of disproved myths about welfare: That it is a major cause of out-of-wedlock births, that it is too generous (this after five years of cuts), that involuntary unemployment is an illusion. The program’s fixed two-year time limit for most families, its “flat grants” that don’t adjust for needs of children and its deeper reductions in assistance can only create further misery for poor kids.

Wilson’s program abandons the GAIN program, instead devolving undefined employment services to counties without any commitment to education or training. Gone, too, are the rules rewarding work by allowing less of a parent’s wages to be counted against a family’s aid.

If the failure of federal reform means Wilson’s program stalls, poor children will get a deserved reprieve.

CASEY McKEEVER

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Sacramento