Bush Urges Simpler Rules for Welfare System

Complaining about “a system that is too bureaucratic,” President Bush urged Congress on Friday to pass legislation he said would give states greater flexibility in running welfare programs while toughening work requirements for recipients.

The House might vote as soon as next week on a bill that would revise the landmark welfare law passed in 1996. Bush, in a speech here, stressed the need to cut the rules Washington imposes on states receiving federal welfare funds.

“The more complicated the rules and regulations out of Washington, the more states have to spend to account for this money,” he said at St. Stephen’s Community House, which helps prepare welfare recipients for work by providing vocational training and child care.

“For the good of the people we’re trying to help,” he said, “flexibility out of Washington--no-strings-attached-type legislation--not only will help people, it’ll be more efficient with our taxpayers’ money.”

The trip was Bush’s third this week to politically important Midwest states; his other stops were in Michigan and Wisconsin.

He travels to Illinois on Monday as he seeks to balance the public attention paid to the Middle East and the war on terrorism by focusing a presidential spotlight on the domestic policy issues that often figure in voters’ decisions.

As he has frequently done this year, Bush mixed politics with his stop in Ohio. He spoke at a luncheon that deputy White House press secretary Scott McClellan said would raise $1.6 million for the reelection campaign of Republican Gov. Robert Taft and $500,000 for the Ohio Republican Party.

The president’s argument that states and local governments should have greater flexibility in running welfare programs goes to the heart of his domestic policy agenda.

It reflects a belief that Washington pays too much attention to details better left to those actually executing social policy.

“You’ve got to trust local people. If you don’t trust local people, it means everybody in Washington is making the decision,” Bush said.

The federal welfare program was overhauled in 1996, when President Clinton joined Republicans in an unusual bipartisan alliance.

They produced a measure limiting the time a person can receive welfare payments and brought about a shift in programs designed to encourage recipients to move into the work force.

That law expires Sept. 30. The House is likely to vote on a five-year renewal Wednesday or Thursday; the issue has yet to come up in the Senate.

The House bill, which closely follows recommendations Bush made in February, would require states to guide 70% of adult welfare recipients into work-related activities.

The current law was supposed to set a 50% level, but the number is much lower in many states.

“Oh, I’ve heard [critics] complain about that’s too high a goal,” Bush said of the 70% figure. “It’s not too high a goal if it helps a person....If it brings dignity into someone’s life, it’s not too high a goal.”

The critics say a number of factors will make it difficult for states to reach the higher requirement.

“We’ve had a dramatic decrease in the welfare caseload,” said Sheri Steisel, an official at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“Those left face the greatest barriers. They’re the ones who couldn’t make it in a good economy.”

Aside from facing a tougher economic environment, some welfare recipients are handicapped by mental illness, substance abuse, low literacy and the effects of domestic violence.

The House bill would limit the degree to which enrollment in programs that deal with these problems is counted as work-related activity.

Steisel said the stricter requirements might force states to increase the number of welfare recipients in community service programs, increasing the public costs, rather than placing them in programs intended to prepare them for private-sector jobs.

Funding is also an issue.

The House measure would offer the states a total of $16.5 billion a year for welfare programs, keeping spending at the 1997 level.

“While they ratcheted up requirements on the states to put people into work programs, they provide no new resources,” said Sharon Parrott, co-director of welfare policy studies at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group in Washington.