THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, August 2, 1996 TAG: 9608020510
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A2 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY LAURA MECKLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: 65 lines
After President Clinton signs a welfare reform bill approved Thursday by the Senate, the power to control welfare benefits will be granted to the states. Supporters say the overhaul would lead more young mothers to stay with their families, and force more fathers to support their children. Opponents counter that women will be more likely to stay with men who abuse them, or abort children they can't afford.
Imagine a new world of welfare:
More young mothers who live with their parents, more women who delay having children, more families who share incomes, and more fathers who provide support.
But also: more abortions, more women who stay with boyfriends or relatives who abuse them, and more crowded living conditions.
As President Clinton prepares to sign a bill that gives states unprecedented authority to create their own welfare systems, the question is what the result will be when the nation fundamentally changes a simple idea that grew into one of its most complex and far-reaching.
``I don't know what's going to happen, and nobody else does either,'' said Mickey Kaus of Los Angeles, who studies welfare policy.
Some are hopeful, others worried, as they make drastically different predictions about how states will use new power to write rules, set payments and decide who will and will not be entitled to government checks.
At its core, the welfare bill ends the federal entitlement that guaranteed financial support to anyone who is eligible. It sends the federal money to the states and allows them to decide how to spend it.
There are restrictions, including a time limit that says recipients cannot collect benefits for more than five years over their lifetimes.
That will make the world of welfare look much different in five years, said Rebecca Blank, a Northwestern University economist. She foresaw both good and bad.
``I personally think it's a very dangerous experiment,'' she said. ``These are potentially rather grave risks.''
``In fact, children will perish as a consequence,'' said David Stoesz, professor of social work at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.
But that assumes most recipients will not be able to find work - a hotly debated point.
The big question is what the states will do with their new power. Some fear the states will end up being punitive when budgetary push comes to shove.
``States that are faced with their own economic and fiscal crises will no longer be required to help these populations,'' said Michael Reisch, professor of social work at the University of Pennsylvania. ``States will reduce benefits and terminate programs when fiscal necessity dictates that.''
Others say the public doesn't want to see destitute women, or destitute children, so states will maintain support.
``That's the big question,'' Kaus said. ``Are we willing to tolerate being quite harsh? I don't think so. I don't think it's in the interest of many governors to be so harsh it's cruel.''
Ultimately, the goal is to drive people off welfare rolls so that states are not faced with such choices. But what programs will states design and how successful will they be? Will caseloads go down? Will parents stop having children they can't afford to raise?
``For some people, it will work,'' Reisch said. But so far, most state experiments have only affected about 20 percent of the caseload, he said. by CNB