Wayward Welfare-Reform Bid

Given that it’s an election year and he once campaigned on a promise to change welfare “as we now know it,” President Clinton naturally says he is anxious to sign welfare reform legislation into law. Indeed, federal aid programs need revamping to discourage dependence and encourage work. But the sweeping legislation expected to pass the Senate today would do more harm than good.

While the bill would set appropriate time limits on public assistance and require more recipients to go to work, it also would eliminate the federal guarantee of basic necessities for poor children. The proposed welfare reform package also would ban most benefits for legal immigrants, including those who have worked and paid taxes before losing jobs or otherwise falling on hard times. That prohibition would especially punish California because 40% of legal noncitizens who receive federally subsidized aid live in this state. Sacramento and the counties would be left to solve the problem.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are expected to try to restore benefits for legal immigrants. An amendment they propose would protect benefits for people who are here legally but would put future legal immigrants on notice that they cannot expect public assistance for at least five years after their arrival. This is a reasonable compromise, but its chances of success are poor because little of what has been discussed regarding the emotional issue of immigration has anything to do with reason.

No state stands to lose more than California if Washington suddenly denies legal immigrants food stamps, aid for the elderly poor and blind and disabled, Medicaid health insurance or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Washington would again shift a federal responsibility to local jurisdictions that have no control over national borders.

At least 1 million legal immigrants and their children currently receive federal assistance in California. They won’t go back home to Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Taiwan, Russia, India, Belize, Canada, South Africa or anywhere else if their checks are cut off. Most will turn to the state or county for help that neither Sacramento nor most counties can afford.

The debate over benefits for legal immigrants overshadows the pluses in the welfare reform bill. The legislation would provide, for instance, more funding for child care for welfare recipients who go to work.

The legislation would allow states to fashion new welfare programs. The White House should insist that states agree on an aid package that temporarily takes care of the basic necessities of children, so that one state cannot shove its responsibilities onto a neighboring state. Amendments that would have provided vouchers for such necessities have failed. The White House should hold firm on this safeguard during conference committee negotiations.

Yes, the welfare reform bill up for a vote today would save the federal government money. But a taxpayer giving less to Washington but more to Sacramento would hardly call this welfare reform.