THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 27, 1996 TAG: 9607270013
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 54 lines
It's a pity that the nation must undertake the dismantling of the nation's welfare system during an election year.
After promising to ``end welfare as we know it,'' and then vetoing two subsequent reform measures, President Clinton is under heavy pressure to sign a third bill. Republicans would love to make a third veto a campaign issue. Clinton would love to sign a bill, keep his promise and disarm Republican criticism.
When the futures of so many individuals are at stake, however, getting it right, not achieving political advantage ought to be motivation for Congress and the president.
A House-Senate conference committee is at work trying to resolve differences between the harsher House version of reform, the Senate plan and additional concessions still sought by the White House.
At least two changes to the proposed legislation are needed. Both the House and Senate plans severely restrict aid for legal immigrants. Laws already on the books are intended to prevent legal immigrants from importing hordes of unemployed relatives and exploiting the system. These further strictures appear to be designed primarily to appeal to voter xenophobia.
Second, we favor the addition of a voucher plan providing noncash benefits such as clothes, diapers and medicine for children whose parents lose their benefits. That is at least a stab at addressing the underlying weakness of this popular reform movement.
It is fundamentally dishonest to be talking of ending a way of life for thousands of people without also including frank discussion of what happens to the children of those who lose benefits and fail to find jobs. The voucher system may not be the only or best solution, but at least it acknowledges the problem.
There is national consensus that the welfare system that has evolved over the past six decades has failed. Its safety net, however flimsy, has contributed along with other societal trends to the proliferation of poor, single-parent families. Attempting to reverse that perilous trend is essential.
But ending a federal guarantee of assistance and returning that responsibility to the states is no panacea. The reason the federal system grew up in the first place was the failure of communities and states to cope with poverty.
The return to a more community-based approach has its benefits. The requirement that welfare payments be linked to work will give many individuals a needed shot of responsibility. But society has yet to find a policy that distinguishes adequately between those who need a push and those who need a boost. The proposed legislation also fails to make that distinction.
In the ongoing quest for humane but hardheaded welfare policy, it is time to start down a new path. But we should not kid ourselves into thinking that the way will be straight, or even that we have a very clear idea of where we're going. by CNB