Wilson, Democrats Escalate Fight Over Welfare Changes

Acrimonious exchanges between Gov. Pete Wilson and Democratic legislative leaders over welfare reform intensified Tuesday as both sides insisted their differences are so great that the issue may not be resolved for another year or until a new governor is elected.

Still smarting from Wilson’s rejection of the first in a package of welfare reform bills passed by the Legislature Monday, Democrats complained that the Republican governor had not even shown the good grace to wait until they completed debate before announcing his veto.

Calling the governor’s veto message a “commentary from a mean-spirited, close-minded gentleman,” Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) told an impromptu news conference that Wilson’s actions had made it “virtually impossible to reach agreement.

“My view would be to just wait for the next governor, who would undoubtedly be better than this gentleman,” he said.

At his own news conference, Wilson retorted that to him the Democratic plan represented such a stunning rejection of the welfare-to-work principles adopted by Congress and the president when reforms were passed last summer that he had no recourse but a veto.

He complained that the plan was riddled with so many “escape mechanisms” that could be used by welfare recipients to avoid work that “it would have won the admiration of Houdini.

“We’ve got a fundamental philosophical disagreement,” he said.

Although Wilson said he intended to veto the two remaining bills in the Democratic welfare package, they had not reached his desk by the end of the day.

While the rancorous exchanges demonstrated the deep divisions between Republicans and Democrats, they also represented an attempt by both sides to position themselves as they prepare for intense behind-the-scenes negotiations over the major issues pending in the Legislature.

Wilson acknowledged that his private meeting Monday night with legislative leaders after his first veto was more cordial than the public utterances of both sides. Both he and lawmakers conceded that it was important, if at all possible, to resolve the welfare issues this year.

“If we don’t do it this year,” said Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno), “they [the voters] are going to let us know about it at the next election.”

Said Wilson: “We are fighting the clock.”

If California fails to adopt a new welfare plan, it could be penalized by as much as $187 million next year if it is unable to move enough welfare recipients into jobs.

In their separate welfare plans, both the governor and the Democrats have attempted to move vast numbers of recipients into the work force, but their methods have been markedly different.

The governor’s plan relies heavily on sanctions and penalties, while the Democratic plan provides for more training and education. Wilson’s plan requires current recipients to work at least 32 hours a week and limits the time they can remain on welfare to 24 months in a three-year period.

In his veto, Wilson argued that by allowing recipients to spend time in training and education, the Democrats had provided an escape mechanism that would allow them to avoid starting work for as long as 24 months.

“What we have [in the Democratic plan] is a system that frankly was worse than even the very flawed system that was evoked in an effort by Congress and the president to institute change,” he said.

But Assemblywoman Dion Aroner (D-Berkeley), one of the authors of the Democratic plan, said in another news conference that the Legislature had attempted to make provisions for those recipients who were unprepared for work. She said 60% of the adults on welfare lack a high school education and others have mental problems or substance abuse problems that need treatment before they can find work.

Wilson used Los Angeles as an example of a county that has successfully moved large numbers of recipients into the work force after it put more emphasis on finding jobs and less on education and training.

A Los Angeles official, however, said the county generally prefers the Democratic plan because for those recipients who do not find work immediately it would make it possible “to provide the personalized services that individuals need to overcome their barriers to employment.”

Advocates for the poor also endorsed the Democratic plan over Wilson’s proposal. “I think many of us in the religious community are, to say the least, dismayed and upset . . . not only by the content of the governor’s veto but also by the hostile language that is used in it,” said Scott Anderson, executive director of the California Interfaith Coalition.