THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, September 11, 1995 TAG: 9509090019
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 55 lines
A welfare-reform plan being promoted by Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole proposes sending federally collected tax dollars back to the grass roots and would authorize the funding of programs run by religious institutions. There are problems with such an approach.
Though block grants are all the rage, they are not without problems. The case against them was recently made in The Washington Post by Jeffrey Eisenach, an adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich. ``Why should the federal government collect hundreds of billions of dollars in tax money and send it back to the states with no rules and no control over spending?'' he asked.
Under the present system, Washington imposes all sorts of restrictions on the money so at least it can claim it serves a useful function by exercising control and oversight. But the selling point of block grants is no strings. In that case, why put the money through a Washington round trip? If the federal government is going to turn into a mere conduit, why not let states fund and manage their own programs?
Using government money to fund the welfare efforts of religious groups raises additional concerns. For one thing, the idea raises thorny church-and-state issues and will face a court challenge if passed.
The ACLU opposes the entanglement of federal money and sectarian organizations and it isn't alone. Even religious groups, like the Baptist Joint Committee and the American Jewish Congress, find the government funding of religious activities disturbing.
Several objections are practical. Taxpayers of one religion may not want their dollars being funneled through an organization run by a second religion.
The question of oversight also arises. The government is often lax about policing its own programs. The current welfare mess is hardly a model of taut management, but at least those who administer it report to those who fund it. That would not be the case under these proposals. Would elected officials monitor programs run by rabbis and reverends more rigorously than those run by bureaucrats? Don't count on it.
Finally, when Congress starts doling out billions in welfare money to churches, won't there be a temptation to pollute the process with politics? It's easy to imagine funds being allocated less on the basis of which church does the best job of helping the poor than which church does the best job of delivering votes.
Welfare needs reform, but running money through Washington that will be spent at state and local levels makes no sense if accountability is waived. Running money through religious institutions raises too many constitutional and practical objections. by CNB