Committee OKs Welfare Reform Plan

With some final concessions to moderates, Democratic legislative leaders put the finishing touches on a welfare reform plan Wednesday, formally igniting a battle with Republicans who were already attacking the proposal as too costly.

A Democratic-controlled conference committee, stalled for hours by a series of drafting snafus and last-minute compromises, finally voted shortly after midnight Tuesday to approve a complex, four-bill package that provided their blueprint for restructuring California’s vast welfare system.

The plan includes strict time limits for welfare recipients, food stamps for legal immigrants and a state promise to assume a share of the cost of General Assistance, the county-funded program for poor adults.

Among the final compromises was an agreement by the committee to let a federal law prevail in California that prohibits drug felons from ever receiving welfare. The federal law had given states the option to moderate that prohibition, and the committee initially had decided to make some exceptions for welfare mothers convicted of possession--but not sale--of drugs.

But strong opposition from nearly a dozen mostly moderate Democrats prompted the committee in the end to go with the tougher federal position.

“I felt that a person shouldn’t be in a position of using drugs and receiving public money,” said Assemblyman Michael Machado (D-Linden). “We cannot continue to hand out money if people are not going to make an attempt to use it to better their lives.”

To deflect Republican criticism, the committee also added provisions to prevent adults from collecting General Assistance once they had reached a five-year lifetime limit that caused them to be cut off from other welfare programs.

In private meetings with legislative leaders, Gov. Pete Wilson had expressed displeasure with an earlier plan that would have allowed those recipients to retain eligibility for General Assistance. And Republicans in the Assembly had accused the Democrats of misleading the public by saying they were providing tough time limits when, in fact, there were loopholes.

“The devil’s in the detail and the details don’t bear out the broad, good-sounding changes the Democrats have been claiming,” said John Nelson, a spokesman for Assembly Republican Leader Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove).

Democratic leaders, insisting they had never intended to provide any loopholes, said they were unaware of the problem until Wilson brought it up.

*

But by moderating the plan, the committee was able to garner only one Republican supporter, Sen. Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley). And Assembly Republicans quickly made it clear that they intended to vote as a bloc against the entire package.

“It’s chock-full of things that there is absolutely no reason we should support,” Nelson said. “We will have reform, but this is probably not it.”

Three of the four bills require only a majority vote and, if Democratic majorities hold together, those measures are expected to easily pass the Assembly and the Senate before going to the governor.

But the fourth bill requires a two-thirds vote--and Nelson said there is little likelihood that it will get the Republican support needed for passage.

He said Republicans are likely to oppose the bill even though it had been designed by Democrats to make Republicans vulnerable to political criticism if they voted against it.

One provision allows a 4.9% cut in welfare benefits to remain in effect for another year and suspends a cost-of-living increase for a similar period.

If that provision is not enacted, then the cut is automatically rescinded this fall and the cost-of-living increase is allowed to go into effect. It means that a Los Angeles welfare mother with two children who now collects $565 a month would be able to get $610 a month. “By voting against the bill, Republicans are in effect voting for a huge increase in welfare benefits,” one Democrat said.

Nelson predicted that Republicans would find other legislative vehicles that they could use to stop the increases.

Among issues that divide the two parties are provisions in the Democratic plan that call for the creation of a state-financed food stamp program for legal immigrants, the state assumption of 30% of the cost of General Assistance and the establishment of community service jobs for welfare recipients who fail to find work after 24 months on aid.

After Democrats modified an earlier plan, the two sides moved close to agreement on time limits. The Democratic plan and one proposed by Wilson call for a five-year lifetime limit for recipients to get aid. And both provide that after five years, the children in a family could continue to receive assistance. Wilson’s plan requires that it must come in the form of noncash or vouchers while the Democrats give counties the option of providing cash or vouchers.

The Democratic plan is expected to go before the Senate and Assembly within a week.