Democrats Tighten Welfare Reform’s Rules on Working

Determined to avoid a revolt by moderates and hoping to attract more Republican support, Democratic legislators substantially modified a welfare reform plan Thursday to impose stricter work requirements on recipients.

After nearly a week of behind-the-scenes negotiations, a conference committee voted to align its plan closer to a proposal by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, whose veto could prevent the issue from being resolved this year and force legislators to deal with it in an election year.

The changes came after a threatened uprising by moderate Democrats in the Assembly who complained that an earlier plan approved by the joint Senate-Assembly committee had several provisions that they considered too liberal.

To keep them from defecting, Assembly leaders, led by Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno), proposed a series of changes that would reduce the safety net for families who still needed aid after five years, prevent certain drug felons from ever receiving assistance and tighten work requirements.

“I believe we have presented a document now that is not a liberal document,” said Assemblywoman Valerie Brown (D-Kenwood), one of the leaders of the moderates. “I think we have come much closer to where the governor is.”

Bustamante said: “This is a firm, fair and realistic solution that anyone serious about moving people from welfare to work should endorse.”

The last-minute wrangling to produce a more moderate plan demonstrated how much the welfare issue has divided Democrats in the Legislature and how politically vulnerable many of them feel on the issue.

In their battles behind closed doors, one faction of Democrats had fought for a more liberal plan, arguing that it would allow them more room to bargain with the governor.

But the other faction, which ultimately won out, insisted that for Democrats in swing districts that strategy could be fatal because it would force them to go on record with votes that could become fodder for an opponent’s campaign.

“They felt they needed to be able to take something back to their districts that they could defend and that would not be used against them when they were running for reelection and now I think they have that,” said Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), co-chairwoman of the committee.

She acknowledged, however, that for many liberals the new provisions in the plan were a bitter pill, especially the one that would set an absolute five-year lifetime limit for adults to receive assistance.

The earlier plan had provided that after five years families could continue to receive assistance at the same levels as long as the adults agreed to work in community service jobs.

Under the new proposal adopted by the committee, after five years the adults would lose assistance and counties would be given the option of providing aid to the children in the family either in the form of cash or non-cash vouchers.

“That’s the one we really had to give on,” said Watson. “But in working with 120 people [in the Legislature] and 18 members of the conference committee . . . I think among the Democrats this is the best we could get.”

In his proposal, Wilson had also suggested a five-year lifetime limit that would cut adults off aid and provide only non-cash assistance to children.

Wilson, however, declined to comment on the committee’s actions, saying through a spokesman that “we have not seen their proposal although we have been provided an outline. We will refrain from commenting until we have a chance to analyze it in depth.”

Other provisions approved by the committee included a tightening of the time limits for recipients to move from welfare to work.

Under the previous plan, recipients could have as long as 33 months to move into jobs before they would lose aid. Under the new proposal, that time would be cut to 24 months, although a county could add six months to the limit if unemployment rates were high.

After recipients reach this limit, the new plan would allow them to continue receiving aid only if they participated in community service jobs.

The committee also voted to suspend a cost-of-living increase for recipients and extend for a year a 4.9% reduction in benefits that went into effect in January. Now, that reduction would expire in November and a cost of living increase would go into effect next year.

In Los Angeles a mother and two children can now receive a maximum grant of $565 a month. If the cut had been restored and the cost-of-living increase had been allowed to go into effect, that grant level would have risen to $610 a month.

Assemblywoman Helen Thompson (D-Davis), a moderate who had objected to the original plan, said one important change for many Democratic legislators had been a toughening of the treatment of drug felons.

“I frankly don’t think we should be funding on welfare people who run drugs or sell drugs,” she said.

The earlier proposal had denied aid to those convicted of a felony for the manufacture, sale or transportation of drugs for a period equal to their jail sentence.

The new plan prohibits anyone convicted of those drug felonies from ever receiving aid.

The one provision that Republicans and Democrats alike supported was a proposal to change the name of the state’s biggest welfare program from Aid to Families With Dependent Children to CalWORK, an acronym for Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids.

The committee is expected to vote again on the new plan next week, then it will be presented to the Assembly and Senate for final approval.