State Welfare Negotiations

* Gov. Pete Wilson is vetoing a logical welfare-to-work plan, one that would get more people to work while protecting children, claiming it is too expensive. Meanwhile, he is proposing a $1-billion cut in income tax for people earning less than $100,000 (July 17). Is this his way of running for president in 2000? Cut taxes and starve children?

And what about his timing? Here we are with the Legislature waiting to start summer vacations, with the state budget nowhere near settled, and he throws in a middle-class tax cut. How cynical can he get? Or how much does he think we will believe?

LEE PODOLAK

Orange

* Re your July 10 editorial on welfare reform: Gov. Wilson had no choice but to veto the Democrats’ plan. Produced behind closed doors, it was a patchwork of deferrals, loopholes and new entitlements. It would have exempted thousands of recipients from work requirements, reduced the number of hours to be worked by recipients and trapped county welfare offices in a maze of mandates and red tape.

We also take issue with your attacks on the governor’s plan for offering three months of maternity leave for children born to welfare recipients. With some exceptions, three months is the maternity leave period for working mothers in California. Democrats advocate a full year’s worth of maternity leave; their plan potentially offers four years. Should welfare recipients receive four to 16 times more benefits than working mothers?

Your editorial advocates a strong child care component to welfare reform. The governor agrees, and he has already allocated a record $1.3 billion for child care. Unlike the Democrats’ proposal, his plan also allows counties the freedom to determine which recipients need child care and other emergency noncash assistance once they’ve entered the work force.

SANDRA R. SMOLEY RN

Secretary, State Health and

Welfare Agency, Sacramento