Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526487
label
Jaycees Roundtable, Grand Rapids, MI, April 10, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526487
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Jaycees Roundtable, Grand Rapids, MI, April 10, 1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Legislation
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526487
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-04-30
month
4
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-04-01
month
4
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4f0b761dd0fa714f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Jaycees Roundtable, Grand
Rapids, MI, April 10, 1973" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech
File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON FRIDAY--
February 9, 1973
Note to Correspondents: Please see attached letter to HEW Secretary Caspar
Weinberger.
Rep. Gerald R. Ford today urged HEW Secretary Caspar Weinberger to order an
HEW policy change which would enable states to wipe out welfare cheating.
Ford asked Weinberger to allow states discretionary use of the dual payee
system of making payments to welfare recipients--the requirement that payment for
specific goods, services or items be in the form of checks which are drawn jointly
to the order of the recipient and the person furnishing the goods, services or items
and negotiable only upon endorsement by both such recipient and such person.
The need for such restrictive payments is made clear by a study conducted in
Genesee County, Michigan by the Michigan Department of Social Services and the
Genesee County Dental Society, Ford said.
This study showed that in cases where dental work was performed on welfare
recipients, only 50 per cent of the money sent to those recipients for payment of
their dental bills was actually used for that purpose.
R. Bernard Houston, director of the Michigan Department of Social Services,
has informed Ford: "The conclusion (of those making the Genesee County study) was
that if public accountability and recipients' dental and optometric needs were of
any concern, the need for change in the payment system was scarcely arguable."
Payment for needed services to welfare recipients is part of their cash
grant in Michigan.
In a letter to Ford, Houston said: "This worked fairly well for a while, but
as caseloads increased abuse increased. To be specific, many recipients received
payment for authorized service and never returned to receive the service, or if
received, did not pay for it. The incidence of this abuse reached such proportions
that many individual doctors and, in some instances, county professional societies
refused further service to welfare recipients.'
Ford has introduced a bill, H.R. 1750, which would give the states
discretionary power to use the dual payee system as much as they wish without losing
Federal welfare payments.
HEW restricts use of the dual payee system to 10 per cent of the welfare
caseload and then only to cases where the recipient has demonstrated inability to
manage money.
Ford said he would be delighted to see Weinberger order the policy change,
making his dual payee bill unnecessary.
###
GERALD R. FORD
FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN OFFICE:
425 CHERRY STREET SE.
GRAND RAPIDS
ZIP 49502
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Mashington, D.C. 20515
February 7, 1973
The Honorable Caspar Weinberger
Secretary
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you with regard to welfare cheating--the failure of persons
on welfare to pay for items or services with funds provided them for
that purpose.
The remedy for such cheating is the dual payee system-the requirement
that payment for specific goods, services or items be in the form of
checks which are drawn jointly to the order of the recipient and the
persons furnishing the goods, services or other items and negotiable
only upon endorsement by both such recipient and such person.
This would apply, for instance, to the payment of rent, payments for
dental and optometric services, and the purchase of such appliances as
a refrigerator.
Michigan has sought to use this dual signature method of assuring pay-
ment for services and goods provided to welfare recipients since
February 1971. But HEW has consistently maintained that the dual
signature method can only be used where welfare recipients have demon-
strated inability to manage money--and even then it must be restricted
to 10 per cent of the welfare caseload.
R. Bernard Houston, director of the Michigan Department of Social
Services, maintains that the policy being pursued by HEW is unrealistic--
and I agree.
I have introduced legislation (H.R. 1750) which would allow a State
discretionary use of the dual signature method in cases involving aid
to dependent children. States would be permitted to use the dual
signature method broadly without risking loss of Federal welfare payments.
The Honorable Caspar Weinberger
February 7, 1973
Page 2
However, Mr. Houston believes that HEW can remedy the present situation
simply through a change in regulations.
I therefore urge that you, as Secretary of HEW, order a change in
policy to allow states to use the dual signature method without loss
of Federal assistance. Even if it were possible to gain enactment of
H.R. 1750 in a relatively short time, I would be glad to see the
objective accomplished through departmental regulation.
I hope I may have a reply from you in the near future.
Best regards,
/s/ Jerry Ford
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
GRF:pc
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.
APRIL 10,1973
Herald R. 3rd
M.C.
TUESDAY
7:30 p.m.
G.R. JAYCEES ROUNDTABLE
IROQUOIS MIDDLE SCHOOL
Congressman
Clarence J. Brown-Ohio
NEWS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PH: WASH.. D.C. 202-225-4324
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20515
SPRINGFIELD 513-325-0474
"REPORT FROM WASHINGTON"
For Release Tuesday, April 3, 1973
THE NEED FOR WELFARE REFORM was once more dramatically under-
scored last week with the release of a General Accounting Office sur-
vey done for the Fiscal Policy Subcommittee of the House-Senate Joint
Economic Committee on which I serve.
The study points out in graphic detail that the huge and costly
maze of federal welfare programs is glutted with bureaucratic overlap
and duplication. There is so much duplication that a true picture is
almost impossible to obtain.
For example, in determining the number of Americans living in
poverty, the Census Bureau has always considered only "cash" income
from wages or welfare benefits. It has not considered the value of
non-cash benefits, such as the value of food stamps, housing supple-
ments, medical and dental care paid for through government programs,
and the like.
Thus, the study concludes, the government figures on poverty have
been exaggerated, because they have always listed only cash income
against the poverty line. The study even noted that welfare benefits
(whether in cash or in non-cash items) are non-taxable, This can
give welfare recipients a net" benefit level that is often higher
than the working neighbor. And even if that working neighber is
paid a few dollars more, he may skeep less because he is paying Social
Security and other taxes.
But the Census Bureau should not be criticised for losing track
of what's going on in its surveys of income. There are approximately
100 federal benefit programs, ranging from Social Security payments
to veterans benefits, food, housing, health care, etc., which will
cost $131 billion in the 1974 fiscal year. Congress has put these
programs on the books. in such a tangled mess that the
to be almost a matter of intent.
The study showed that more than half of the families receiving
benefits participated in more than one program, and that 19 percent
participated in five or more programs. And the survey pointed out
10
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
(more)
Page two
that by taking advantage of these overlapping programs, many families
received more income than the median amount received by their working
neighbors.
And finally, the survey report makes the point once again that
the structure of most of the welfare programs discourages welfare
r' Lipients from trying to get off the welfare rolls and into the work
force. They can't make the switch gradually, because part-time wages
almost always reduce benefits. And the great majority of welfare
recipients can't jump into a job that would pay more than they can
obtain under the welfare programs--or they wouldn't be there in the
first place. So they are forced to stay on the dole, hoping the
benefits will be increased, or more programs will be added.
The subcommittee does caution that the survey covered only six
low-income areas around the nation. Therefore, the data collected
should be considered on a preliminary basis. The report calls for
an on-going national study on which final judgements in reforming
the welfare system should depend. Nevertheless, the preliminary
data strongly indicates that the costly welfare system in this
country has become so inequitable and has trapped so many citizens
on its treadmill that no excuses exist for delaying many reforms.
FOR SEVENTH DISTRICT TOURISTS who plan to visit Washington this
year, there is good news. Parking along the Mall has finally been
restricted from 10 a.m. each day until midnight so that tourists will
have an opportunity to park. There is a three-hour limit, but tourists
in the past have often complained of spending that much time just
looking for a non-existent parking spot.
-30-
STOREY, TOWNSEND, COX: Office (202) 225-3565
HOLD FOR RELEASE
TOWNSEND: Home (703) 821-2908
Monday, A.M., March 26, 1973
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy
Subcommittee Report on GAO Search of Public Welfare Records Shows Huge
Overlap of Programs
Representative Martha W. Griffiths (D-Mich.), Chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee's Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy, released a Subcommittee
staff study today which reports on data collected from public welfare agencies
by the General Accounting Office (GAO) at her request. "This study documents
what I have been saying for some time. When you have 100 different programs
consuming more than $100 billion a year in Federal taxes, some families can get
more out of this 'nonsystem' than they could possibly earn or than a high per-
centage of people in the area are earning. But other equally needy families get
little or no aid."
The staff study, How Public Welfare Benefits are Distributed in Low-Income
Areas, is based on a GAO check of agency records for benefits distributed under
100 separate Federal, State, and local programs, including aid to families with
dependent children (AFDC), aid to the aged, blind, and disabled, general assistance,
social security, unemployment insurance, veterans benefits, medicaid and medicare,
food stamps, school lunches, public housing and a host of others. The records
were searched in six different local areas for benefits paid to each of 1,758
households. These households were chosen at random from Census tracts identified
by the Bureau of the Census as having concentrations of people with low incomes.
Both the six locations and the names of household members have been kept in
strict confidence by the GAO and the Subcommittee.
"I would like to thank the GAO for the tremendous job they did in amassing
the data for the Subcommittee," Mrs. Griffiths said. "It required an enormous
effort to review so many records in a short period of time, and the GAO staff
is to be commended for this work."
"The Subcommittee is also very appreciative of the assistance received
from the House computer staff in analyzing the data," Mrs. Griffiths added.
"We received the full cooperation of Congressman Wayne Hays, Chairman of the
House Administration Committee, in utilizing the computer center operated by that
committee. This was truly an historic partnership because it marked the first
2
time that a congressional committee relied directly on congressional facilities
for data processing in undertaking analysis of a significant budgetary item. We
are all aware of the need for Congress to strengthen its capability for program
evaluation if it is to carry out fully its role in setting spending priorities.
The Administration Committee's computer facility is an important resource that
should facilitate progress in this area."
Summary of Findings
Mrs. Griffiths said, "Sixty percent of the sample households received some
form of publicly provided aid during the year--whether cash, goods, or services.
But what is most important for policymakers to realize is that the typical recipient
is no longer affected simply by one and only one program. This study shows that
over half the households with benefits received them under more than one program.
In fact, 11 percent of all sample households--or 19 percent of the households
receiving benefits--participated in five or more programs during the year. The
members of one household actually participated in 11 programs. Households re-
ceiving large numbers of benefits come in all shapes and sizes.
-
An 85-year-old man and his wife in a rural area received $155
monthly in old age assistance and social security checks and also
received benefits from four different food and medical programs worth
$405 a month. Their benefits total $560 a month or $6,720 on an annual
basis.
-
A 17-year-old mother of two children on AFDC in a south atlantic
city received $316 worth of assistance from seven food, health,
housing, and manpower programs in addition to her $226 a month in cash
from the welfare agency. This amounts to $6,504 annually.
-
A mother of 10 children in a midwestern city had $616 monthly from
AFDC and also participated in four other programs with benefits
valued at $177 a month. The total of $793 a month in benefits is
equivalent to $842 monthly and over $10,000 annually of earned income
before taxes. This income is not only untaxed, it cannot be garnished.
-
On the other hand, in a southern city, a family of 11 headed by an
able-bodied male, although not eligible for cash assistance, did
receive help worth $131 a month from five noncash assistance programs;
3
-
A household of five adults and four children in a western city
among them had $353 in monthly cash assistance (if we add the
current month's AFDC payment to their average monthly unemployment
insurance benefits), to supplement the household's average private
income of $972 a month and the $685 of aid in kind derived from eight
different programs; and
-
An unemployed man and a working wife supported a child and minor
relative in an eastern city with $104 monthly from AFDC and general
assistance benefits and $281 worth of aid in kind from four other
programs in addition to the wife's average monthly wages of $429.
Their benefits alone are equal to about $5,000 in before-tax wages."
"With the best of intentions," Mrs. Griffiths said, "we have tried to fill
the gaps in our inadequate public assistance programs by providing other benefits.
But in so doing we have created an impossibly complex maze of programs which pro-
ducesunintended results. This report shows how program rules discourage work,
how some people are treated inequitably relative to others, and how programs
often work against each other to undo legislative intent. And incredible as it
may seem, while total incomes for the 1,059 households with benefits average
more than $400 a month at three of the six sites, some families receiving large
numbers of benefits still have incomes below the Federal poverty standards."
Why This Study Was Done
This study was done to find:
--Who receives benefits, how much are their total benefit packages worth,
and from how many programs are benefits received?
--Are the benefits equitably distributed from place to place and among
households of various types?
--Are the benefits distributed in cash, or in goods and services?
--To what extent are benefits related to household income?
This study goes beyond the usual analysis of the distribution of benefits
in terms of cash benefits only, since such noncash benefits as food stamps,
child care, and subsidized housing programs are both valuable to recipients
and costly to taxpayers. Without taking such benefits into account, it is
4
impossible to gauge how well or how poorly the needs of low-income people are
being met--or even how many people are poor. "The information in this study,
by itself, cannot fill the data vacuum. However, it is a starting point for
answering questions which merit more routine and detailed study. It must be
remembered in interpreting the findings," Mrs. Griffiths cautioned, "that the
data pertain to low-income areas, not to the nation as a whole or even to all the
poor. But I for one find that they make a dramatic case for drastic action."
Adequacy of Benefits
"The point of welfare is to provide a reasonable amount of aid to those
who need it. Nowhere is the failure of these programs more apparent than when
judged by this criterion. In terms of adequate income, some beneficiaries have
moved out of the poverty class and passed the median wage in their areas while
others remain very poor."
Even receipt of many benefits does not guarantee that a household will
escape poverty. "On average," Mrs. Griffiths indicated, "households in five
or more programs have incomes above the poverty standards. At three of the six
sites this group of households had total private incomes and benefits so high
they averaged in excess of $500 a month." But 10 percent of this group is
still poor in spite of the many forms of aid available to them.
Mrs. Griffiths said, "I feel that this study shows three things we must
be careful about in judging the adequacy of assistance in the future:
(1) Programs cannot be viewed in isolation when the typical beneficiary
in these low-income areas receives aid from more than one source
during the year;
(2) The level of cash assistance is a limited indicator of income
adequacy since the study shows that about half the assisted
households also had private income and a very high proportion received
noncash assistance as well; and
(3) When you look at one small part of a household, the income and
other assistance may not be adequate. When you bring into the
household grandparents drawing social security or old age assistance,
5
brothers, sisters, or others with earned income, the total income
may not only be adequate, it may be far more adequate than the income
of those who work. But, if we cannot even check properly on the where-
abouts of the father under AFDC, we certainly cannot base welfare on
who is in the total household."
Incentives to Work
"Another important issue that concerns me," Mrs. Griffiths said," is
what the financial incentives are for people with low incomes to work. By
adding one program on top of another, we have made it possible for some people
to derive as much or more income from welfare programs than they could earn
in a full-time job and than their neighbors currently are earning. And since
many of these programs reduce the benefit amounts as earnings rise, being in
several programs often means that the recipient who increases his work effort
may have very little gain in net income to show for it.
"I would like to point out the study's findings that both work disincentive
factors become critical when all of the overlapping benefits are considered
together. If you look at the families who are in a number of programs and who
are not working, you find that their total benefits generally exceed what a woman
working full-time at the median wage rate earns after taxes in the six low-income
areas we studied. The benefit amounts are even close to the average workingman's
wages after you deduct taxes and work expenses to figure take-home pay.
"For instance, in the eastern city we looked at, the average monthly cash,
food, and housing benefit for nonworking families with five or more benefits
was $426. This is approximately $55 more than the median wage less social security
taxes for women and only $80 less than the comparable figure for men. For any
man who had to pay income taxes and who had work expenses, there would be even
less of a difference. If only cash benefits are counted as income, the average
cash benefit of $339 is still comparable to the after-tax median wage for women
in that city.
"In the midwestern city, a similar group of nonworking households averaged
$376 a month in cash, food, and housing benefits. A woman working full-time at
the median wage rate for that area would have netted only $388 after social
6
security taxes. The comparisons between benefits and wages available in the
other three cities are similar to this," Mrs. Griffiths noted.
"Now even if the head of a family eligible for these benefits still wants
to work and finds a job," Mrs. Griffiths continued, "he or she will probably
discover that the family's financial position won't be improved much. After the
first few dollars of earnings, the AFDC program reduces its benefits by 67 cents
for each added dollar earned. If an AFDC family gets food stamps, the price of
the stamps will go up as earnings increase, too. If the family lives in a sub-
sidized housing unit, the rent will rise. Adding all of these program actions
together, the family's total income may have increased by only a few cents per
dollar earned.
"If you look at the families with children that receive benefits under
five or more programs, you see that most of them face potentially large benefit
losses if they work. In fact, in the eastern city we studied, we found that 70
percent of this high-benefit group would probably have more than two thirds of
each additional earned dollar disappear through tax deductions and benefit re-
ductions. Similar situations were found in the other locations as well. This
means that one half the women working full time in those areas are earning less
than women on welfare and yet working women pay taxes to support women on welfare."
Program Effectiveness
"One of the most unfortunate things about having so many programs aiding
the same group of people is that we are wasting money duplicating administrative
tasks. Meanwhile, these programs are stumbling all over each other and preventing
one another from effectively carrying out legislative intent." Mrs. Griffiths
said, "The data collected by the GAO came from the records of 100 programs ad-
ministered by more than 20 agencies. Of 1,758 households in the study, 1,059
received 2,935 different benefits. At an average rate of roughly three benefits
per household served, one of the reasons why welfare administration is so over-
burdened becomes clear. With all of these agencies checking income and family
characteristics, keeping records, mailing checks or paying vendors, and enforcing
program rules while serving largely the same clientele, the amount of wasted motion
and wasted taxpayers' dollars is deplorable.
7
"As an example, the GAO found a household of nine people receiving benefits
from 10 different programs. Some benefits were paid all year, some for only part
of the year. Some were paid to a single household member, others went to a related
family group within the household, and still other benefits went to a boarder
living there. How would we possibly expect the staff from several independent
agencies to keep all of this straight so that benefits are totally accurate every
month for all these programs?
"There are many examples of how programs automatically change to offset
legislative changes in other programs, thereby weakening or reversing the intent
of the change in law. The most recent event occurred last fall when social security
benefits were raised by 20 percent. For the many social security
beneficiaries who also receive old age assistance in low-income areas, the increase
meant that other benefits decreased, sometimes to the point of making the bene-
ficiary worse off financially than before the 20 percent increase. States and
cities are very vocal when the Federal Government threatens to reduce programs,
but we never hear about the fiscal relief they obtained by reducing their assistance
payments because of the 20 percent social security increase to the aged and dis-
abled on welfare.
"This is only one well-publicized example of the way in which these program
overlaps can misdirect public funds away from the goals of legislators. These
interlocking programs present many other situations where congressional or agency
intent may be thwarted. For example, an amendment to the Housing Act of 1971
placed Federal limits on rents paid by public housing tenants. This restriction
forced many State and local welfare agencies to change their payment policies so
that public assistance recipients in public housing now receive more discretionary
income than do equally needy recipients living in private housing. If a welfare
agency financially penalizes an AFDC recipient for refusing a valid job offer, the
penalty may be partially offset if the public housing authority lowers the family's
rent to reflect the income decrease caused by the penalty. If the social security
payroll tax rate is increased, this increases the income levels at which public
assistance eligibility ceases since taxes paid are disregarded in calculating
income for welfare eligibility determination. This list 6f program changes affecting
other programs could go on and on, but the point is clear. The high degree to
which benefits overlap means that all changes in these programs should be coordinated
if the desired impact of one change is not to be offset by automatic adjustments in
other programs."
8
Equity of Benefit Distribution
Persons with similar needs should be treated as alike as possible in terms
of the benefits they receive. It has often been alleged that inequities built
into current welfare programs have produced a variety of socially undesirable
behavior patterns among low-income people--that they tend to migrate to places
with better programs; fathers leave or pretend to leave their families or refuse
to marry the mothers in the first place, so the women and children can qualify
for welfare; and once on welfare, mothers continue to have children in order to
retain eligibility for AFDC and related benefits.
"But when you look at all the public welfare programs," Mrs. Griffiths
stated, "it is a very complicated business to tell just how inequitably they may
be working. For instance, a program like food stamps may partially offset the
differences in treatment of male- and female-headed families under public as-
sistance cash payments. That is, a male-headed family with an income low enough
is eligible for food stamps, and he may be eligible for a bigger food stamp bonus
than a female-headed family on AFDC which includes a worker. But another program
like medicaid may increase the benefit differentials. The man's income may be
too high for medicaid in his State. As long as the female-headed family gets
one dollar of welfare, it is eligible for medicaid, no matter what its income.
So, without a national survey of all programs, it is impossible to say what the
overall situation is.
"But we do know that there are families in worse straits than their neighbors
because of how our programs work," she continued. "For example, the GAO found
two four-person families in one city with the same amount of wages--about $350
a month. One family, which included a mother and three children, also received
AFDC, food stamps, and medicaid averaging $359 a month in all. The other family,
which included a mother, father and two children, could not qualify for AFDC or
medicaid because of the father's presence in the home. Yet if the mother pushed
the husband out of the home and married another man, the step-father could continue
to earn and the mother could continue to draw AFDC for the children.
9
"We have similar problems with our programs for the aged. We found two
elderly couples in the rural area, both having similar cash incomes of around $250
a month and eligibility for medicare. But one couple had all that cash income from
social security, while the other couple received both social security and welfare
checks. Because they qualified for welfare, the latter couple also had $33 of
free food per month plus free health care under medicaid. The couple on welfare
was clearly better off. This example is but one indication of the great need for
a total medical program.
"This study is hopefully only a beginning. We need to know the kind of
information presented here not just for six areas but for the nation as a whole,
and not just at one point in time but on a regular, recurring basis.
"The Executive Branch is at fault in not collecting better data. I would
like particularly to point out the inadequacy of census data. They check on
nothing but cash income, and even on that their reports are inadequate. It has
been known for some time that they don't get a full count of all cash welfare
income. Our figures show this too. The Census Bureau does not check on any other
benefits received, such as the more than $2 billion in food stamps, and other
'almost-cash' benefits. The result, as this study shows, is that they are
exaggerating the poverty in this country under the present system. Yet the
Executive sends up programs and Congress acts to correct these inadequacies based
on Census Bureau information.
"As I said in the beginning, this study is an historic first--the first
study of all income maintenance programs completed by Congress' own facilities.
"However much it has shown, it still has not shown the whole picture. Yet
it has shown enough to make it obvious to all that the present system is in serious
need of a complete overhaul. We cannot continue to add program after program aimed
at the same or almost the same group of people, each program having different re-
quirements for eligibility, and different benefit reduction rates for working,
and different staffs for administering each program.
"These programs should be reviewed with a view of combining the necessary
ones, and possibly eliminating some of them altogether. In Congress there is
10
only one tax committee. No other committee can levy a tax without the approval
of the Ways and Means Committee. Yet any committee can enact an income maintenance
program, or welfare program if you will--they call them getting rid of surpluses,
housing America, and so forth. We should set up an on-going device in Congress
that reviews how all of the programs work together, and factual explanations should
be given to all Members before any votes are cast."
#
#
#
#
#
Members of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy are:
House of Representatives
Senate
Martha W. Griffiths, (D-Mich.) Chairman
William Proxmire (D-Wis.)
Richard Bolling (D-Mo.)
Abraham Ribicoff (D-Conn.)
Hugh L. Carey (D-N.Y.)
Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. (D-Tex.)
William B. Widnall (R-N.J.)
Jacob K. Javits (R-N.Y.)
Barber B. Conable, Jr. (R-N.Y.)
Richard S. Schweiker (R-Pa.)
JC'S COMMUNITY WIDE FORUM ---- 4-10-73
DR. STEVEN MONSMA - HON. GERALD R. FORD - COMM. STEPHEN L. KISHKORN
CHARLES P. CALATI - DOROTHY WYSOCKI
-
and FRANK M. WHITE
THANK YOU DR. MONSMA -- CONGRESSMAN FORD,
OTHER FELLOW PANELISTS AND INTERESTED CITIZENS WHO HAVE COME TO THIS
AUDITORIUM THIS EVENING.
It is indicated that with the very limited time for a presentation I should
attempt to give all of you a general overview of the KC DSS in respect to the
"goods and services" provided by the Department.
To begin with I want you to know that as of today we are providing financial
assistance and related services to approximately 40,000 residents of Kent
County. Since the present population of Kent is approximately 410,000 people
it means we are touching one out of every ten residents. We are doing this
in the following manner:
6,765 Families Receiving ADC
1,582 Individuals Receiving OAA
march or 1973
1,554 Individuals Receiving AD
61 Individuals Receiving AB
This totals 9,962 grants of financial assistance. We must also keep in mind
that in each ADC family there is approximately 4 members.
SOCIAL SERVICES
The day care program must be allowed to continue. I believe the
termination of this important program only throws women who are de-
prived of day care, back on welfare. I recently wrote to Caspar W.
Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, to protest this
cutback. There are many who side with me on this so I am hopeful we can
get another look at the program and have day care restored. Many of the
cutbacks the President has made, however, are justifiable. And for ex-
ample, many social services programs such as Headstart, Health Care and
Legal Services will receive more money under Revenue Sharing than they
did previously. The Administration is trying to cut down spending, cut
waste and prevent an increase in taxes. It is my hope that with a re-
sponsible Congress acting upon the suggestions of the President, we can
arrive at a reasonable, equitable system which protects working mothers
and at the same time, stabilizes spending and balances the budget.
SOCIAL SERVICES FOR ELDERLY: Senator Schweiker and I have introduced
legislation to allow needy senior citizens who are not on welfare to
participate in social services programs on the same basis that those
who are on welfare now do. Last fall the Senate voted to place a $2.5
billion ceiling on the spiraling annual cost of social services programs.
This prohibited the states from spending more than 10% of their Federal
allotment for services for individuals not actually receiving public
assistance. This meant that in order for senior citizens to receive
homemaker, nutrition, recreation, transportation and other social ser-
vices, they would have to accept welfare. Our amendment simply allows
the States to fund social service programs for non-welfare poor senior
citizens from their total Federal allotment, rather than from just the
10% reserved for the nonrecipient poor.
PEACE AGREEMENT
At the International
Conference Center in
Paris for the signing
of the Vietnam Peace
Agreement, I was
greeted warmly by Chi
Peng Fei, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs for
the People's Republic
of China. This was an
extremely happy and
long-awaited occasion.
QUICKIES
I have given my support to the following measures:
1. A bill to permit private property owners along Lake Erie to
YOUR
qualify for Federal assistance. This area is experiencing a
serious threat of continued erosion which may create a major
disaster along the shoreline.
SENATOR
2. A bill to give minority businessmen greater access to major
sources of private investment capital. This would authorize
the Small Business Administration to guarantee up to 70% of the
purchase price paid by investment companies and other private
REPORTS
investors for securities issued by minority businesses.
Hugh Scott
3. The appointment by the President of Vincent J. McCoola of
Pennsylvania to the National Council on Education Research.
He is an expert on nonpublic school education.
4. A bill to improve high speed rail passenger service in the north-
eastern United States. This would also substantially reduce
travel time between Washington, D.C. and Southeast Pennsylvania.
5. A bill which provides sufficient protective funding, through a
workable insurance program, to meet any natural disaster with a
"It may be laid down as a
swift federal response. The title of this bill is the National
primary position, and the
Catastrophic Disaster Insurance Act of 1973.
basis of our system, that
6. A bill designating certain segments of the Interstate Highway
every citizen who enjoys the
System as the "Dwight D. Eisenhower Highway." The memorial to
protection of a free government,
the late President includes Interstate 70 from Washington, D.C.
owes not only a portion of his
to Denver, Colo.; Interstate 25 from Denver to Cheyenne, Wyo.,
property, but even of his personal
and Interstate 80 from Cheyenne to San Francisco. The route
services to the defense of it."
includes 150 miles through 5 southwestern Pennsylvania counties:
Fulton, Bedford, Somerset, Westmoreland and Washington.
General George Washington
7. A policy position adopted by a third of the members of the Senate,
supporting fiscal prudence and calling for a spending ceiling.
1783
This is an attempt to make the Congress more fiscally responsive
and responsible to the American people.
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
IN THIS REPORT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
U.S.S.
*
The Budget
*
Campaign Reform
*
School Prayer
*
Social Services
*
Peace Agreement
HON. GERALD FORD
SUITE H-230
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20 500
APRIL 1973
THE BUDGET
THE BUDGET DOLLAR
The Administration's
reorganization of human
SOCIAL
INSURANCE
NATIONAL
needs spending is an
INDIVIDUAL
TAXES AND
DEFENSE
INCOME
CONTRIBUTIONS
HUMAN
TAXES
30c
effort to make government
RESOURCES
29c
aid more effective and to
42c
47c
stabilize spending to
CORPORATION
INCOME
10c
balance the budget. It
TAXES
does not, as some have
4c
5c
6c
14c
7c
bc
charged, cut off funds for
PHYSICAL
human needs. When Presi-
OTHER
RESOURCES
dent Nixon took office in
BORROWING EXCISE TAXES
NET INTEREST
OTHER
1969, 45% of the budget
went for defense and 35%
WHERE IT COMES FROM
WHERE IT GOES
was earmarked for human
services. Now 47% will go for human services while only 30% is channeled
into defense spending. Here are the facts:
1973 Human Resource outlays are 13% over 1972
1974 Human Resource outlays are 8% over 1973
1974 Human Resource outlays will be double those of 1969
While the overhead money for Community Action Agencies ($328 million
spread over 908 agencies) is being dropped in FY 1974, all the sub-
stantive programs of OEO (migrants, Indians, Community Development,
Neighborhood Health Center, Head Start, Legal Services, etc.) are being
transferred to other agencies or set up under new authority at a funding
level equal to or higher than the FY 1973 level.
CAMPAIGN REFORM
Senator Charles McC. Mathias and I have reintroduced legislation to
correct deficiencies in the existing campaign disclosure law. In 1971,
we proposed creation of a Federal Elections Commission and called for
stronger reforms in the area of contribution reports. If this legis-
lation had been adopted, the entire aura of the Presidential campaign
would have been strikingly different. The new legislation attempts to
deal with some additional problems. Primarily it calls for full re-
porting and disclosure of campaign contributions and the creation of a
six-member Federal Elections Commission with full legal powers.
SCHOOL PRAYER
I have joined with Senator Richard S. Schweiker in reintroducing a con-
stitutional amendment to reinstate voluntary prayer and Bible reading
in our public schools and buildings. This will ensure voluntary and
nondenominational expression of individual religious belief. We are
working for early Senate action.
COMMUNITY - WIDE ROUND TABLE 1973
"Open Public Forums for Discussion of Topics of Community Concern"
March 21, 1973
Hon. Gerald R. Ford
Congressman 5th Congressional District
110 Michigan N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49502
Dear Mr. Ford:
The Grand Rapids Jaycees in conjunction with the
American Association of University Women, The League of Women
Voters and the Municipal Action League, have initiated a new and
exciting program which should be of interest to you. The program
is entitled "Community-Wide Round Table 1973" and will sponsor
two open forum discussions on topics of current interest in the
Metropolitan Grand Rapids area. We feel that you or your group
would be interested in attending one or both of these interesting
forum discussions and actively participate by posing questions
for our panel of speakers.
On April 10, 1973 we will present an open forum discussion
entitled "The Welfare System." Our guest panelists will be:
Gerald R. Ford, Congressman, Fifth Congressional District; Frank M.
White, Deputy Director, Kent County Department of Social Services;
Stephen L. Kishkorn, Kent County Commissioner; Charles T. Calati,
Welfare Reform Coalition and Assistant Director, Human Relations
Commission, Grand Rapids Catholic Diocese; Dorothy Wysocki, Welfare
recipient and member of the Welfare Rights Organization. Our
moderator will be Dr. Steven Monsma of Calvin College's Political
Science Department.
On April 24, 1973 we will present our second open forum
discussion entitled "Crime in Grand Rapids". Our panelists for
this forum will be: Honorable Woodrow A. Yared, Judge 61st
District Court; Francis Pierce, Deputy Superintendent, Grand Rapids
Police Department; David Kamm, Kent County Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney; William Jackson, local defense attorney. The moderator
for this forum will be Dave Bolton, WOTV newscaster.
Both of our programs will be held at Iroquois Middle
School (Old Ottawa High School) and will begin at 7:30 p.m.
Each of the speakers will have an opportunity to make a presentation
GERALD
after which the program will be opened for questions from the floor.
We encourage you and your group to attend both of these
interesting and informative programs. Please feel free to pose
questions to our panelists and become better informed in these areas
of vital community concern.
We look forward to seeing you on April 10th and 24th.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Dugan, Chairman
Community-Wide Round Table 1973
800 Union Bank Building
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Telephone: 451-8251
February 23, 1973
MEMORANDUM
beep Mr file for
TO:
Mr. Ford
FROM:
Gordon
that late
It might interest you to know that I was recently a panel member for
the same type of program I see you have committed yourself to for April 10.
Fred Slikkers of the Department of Social Service represented the County
and I represented you. Otherwise the panel was identical. This was for the
American Association of University women.
Basically, the thrust of my remarks that evening were that welfare re-
form had been proposed by the President some time ago, that the House had
moved on it but that the Senate had been derelict in their duty.
Beware Calati!!! He is flakey and very "left-wing" in his thinking.
You may find yourself agreeing with Kishkorn but not being able to say so
publicly because of his Democrat position.
Of course you know that Monsma is also a Democrat and Dorothy Wysocki,
I am certain, has never had occasion to vote for a Republican candidate.
Frank White is an unknown factor.
It's too bad you got into this thing because I know what the panelists
are
Going to try to do to you. If you have any questions
or if you would like to discuss this, please feel free to give me a call.
Gardon
D'C'
30212
Forres of
Office of (ps respect
Condited of PRICE
216
vagos
Одино
MaH
SANGER
GEBVED is LOUD
OLDER
GERALD R. FORD
MICHIGAN OFFICE:
FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
425 CHERRY STREET SE.
GRAND RAPIDS
ZIP 49502
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
house of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
or TE Aon MONTG TTKe CO FPTS' byesse [SG] ILSS to are the or CSTI
916 coruã to FIX co go CO Дол. It Лол USAS guil
If,8 FOO pg Доп dof Tupo FPT* pecsues I KUOA MUST FPG Denoyrece
ALSUK MUTFO Tª 1717 mycumu
I you CELLETU' per HEASE peg OCCERTON FO доре for 9 gebapricen *********
OF CONTES Лоп KUOM cuse HOUSENS To viso 9 DEMOCISE sug nonorph MASOCKT'
BapTToTA pecsures of ure DEMOCISE
дол well true Aomeets saxeered ATTP KTepKoΓo prif 110 £ perna spre DO est 80
gemsis CST#67111 NO T8 stug ASIA TM PTS cyruyrna.
.y3ub stady at need bad stane? odd tarit Jud 31 по bevom
toxm pgg peeu broboeeg pA FUG breathens BOITG filme são' cuse Fye Hones pag
que spares of mA referrys cuse сдентий MSIS cuse ADJESTS 10-
ymexpesu увгостястом of MORIOU
sug I hon' OFFICEATES que bener are JUTE MSE for cus
ALSO of cue of 20019] FUG comução
Fue assus FAbe of brodesm I 266 Дол USAG committed fo FOI WORTH TO"
If wrape receiver Лол go KUOM cyst I ASE LEGGUITA 9 benef wearper, for
LEON:
Corgon
10:
NX* Lorg
Reprost\ 33' T813
LAW OFFICES
MOHNEY, GOODRICH & TITTA, P.C.
UNION BANK BUILDING, SUITE 800
VANDENBERG CENTER
C.BLAIR MOHNEY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49502
AREA CODE 616
EDWARD B. GOODRICH
TELEPHONE 451-8251
PETER A. TITTA
BRUCE W. NECKERS
February 21, 1973
RICHARD J. QUIST
ROBERT J. DUGAN
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Community-Wide Round Table
"The Welfare System"
April 10, 1973
C
Dear Mr. Ford:
On behalf of the Grand Rapids Jaycees I would like
to thank you for agreeing to participate in our Community-
Wide Round Table program on Tuesday, April 10, 1973. It will
be a great benefit to our program to have such a knowledgeable
and distinguished speaker.
We fully understand the necessity of making a tentative
commitment in view of the heavy legislative schedule in April.
P
We very much appreciate your attempt to work our program into
your very busy schedule.
Our program will be held in the auditorium of
Iroquois Middle School (Old Ottawa High School) and will commence
Y
at approximately 7:30 p.m.. If you are not able to attend until
somewhat later in the evening, we will make every attempt to
arrange our program accordingly.
For your information, the other speakers participating
in our program will be as follows:
Frank M. White, Deputy Director, Kent County
Department of Social Services
Stephen L. Kishkorn, Kent County Commissioner
Charles P. Calati, Assistant Director, Human
Relations Commission of the Grand Rapids
Catholic Diocese
Dorothy Wisocki, Welfare Recipient and Officer
of the Welfare Rights Organization
Stephen Monsma, Political Science Professor,
Calvin College (Moderator)
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Page Two
The Grand Rapids Jaycees hope to publicize this
program as much as possible. Although the program is new
we hope to encourage a broad range of interested citizens
to attend and become better informed on the problems
confronting the present welfare system. Various members of
the media have been contacted and at least one local radio
station has expressed an interest in broadcasting the program.
The Grand Rapids Jaycees again thank you for your
interest in our program and your willingness to participate
as a speaker. Should you have any questions, please feel
free to contact me at any time.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Dugan
RJD:gk
CC: Michigan Office
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
STATE OF MICHIGAN
GENESEE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
P.O. Box 3010
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor
310 West Oakley Street
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Flint, Michigan 48502
R. BERNARD HOUSTON, Director
April 2, 1973
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Office of the Minority Leader
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Re: H. R. 1750 - 93rd. Congress, 1st. Session
Dear Representative Ford:
We wish to thank you for providing us the opportunity of being able to
discuss the above legislation which was introduced by you on January 11,
1973, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Your introduction
of this legislation and its successful passage in both the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Senate will do much to improve the present administra-
tion of the Aid to Families of Dependent Children Program.
At the present time, we in Michigan are experiencing anywhere from ten to
fifteen percent of the caseload who are not using their public assistance
grants for the purpose of meeting the needs of their families. Your pro-
posed legislation will permit the States to administer public assistance
by permitting that checks be drawn jointly to the order of the recipient
and the person furnishing goods, services or items, and this check would
only be negotiable upon the endorsement by both the recipient and such
person who furnishes the above to the public assistance recipient.
We would also like to address you to three other areas of administration
of public assistance programs which are the cause of much criticism of
public assistance. The recent report issued by the GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE cites numerous examples of families on welfare programs who receive
I
more money than persons who work, as well as examples of families not re-
ceiving enough for a minimum standard of living. It would appear that the
incentive toward employment which is known as the "Income Disregard" prin-
ciple in administering public assistance should be examined and corrected
in order that families on welfare would not be receiving more money than
those persons who are working. It would be our suggestion that the prin-
ciple of income disregard be retained in order to encourage families on
welfare to take employment but that once employed, the income disregard
MICHIGAN
THE
GREAT
LAKE
STATE
1-L
Page Two-April 2, 1973
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Re: H. R. 1750 - 93rd. Congress, 1st. Session
principle would then be applied on a diminishing basis over a period of
six months to one year to the point where the income disregard would no
longer be applied in administering public assistance, and that the families
on welfare who are employed would after the elimination of the income dis-
regard, be on the same income basis as other families who are not on welfare.
The second suggestion toward welfare reform would be that the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare instruct all States to do away with the prin-
ciple of "declaration" at the time of application so that all applicants
would need to provide documentation in order to prove their eligibility for
public assistance. It would also appear that the Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare should return back to its former instructions of making
it a necessity that home calls must be made at least on a semi-annual basis
in all cases where public assistance is being paid to a family. It is our
belief that much criticism that is being leveled at the administration of
public assistance programs today results from the earlier Health, Education
and Welfare Department regulations which directed the States that the decla-
ration method for application for public assistance be used so that documen-
tation and home calls no longer were mandatory in administering public assist-
ance throughout the fifty States and Territories.
Our last suggestion toward a reform of the welfare program would be to require
3
that Michigan be allowed to enter into an experimental program of "workfare"
similar to that plan which the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
allowed the State of California to enter into. We are enclosing a copy of a
recent news release from the small Michigan community of Linden, located in
Genesee County, Michigan, whereby the Council became involved in the discus-
sion of public welfare administration and urged that a method of workfare be
required of all able-bodied public assistance recipients.
It is a strange anomaly that for instance, local Departments of Social Serv-
ices in Michigan are permitted to administer work relief programs when these
work relief programs do not involve the use of Federal monies. However, when
the case is moved over to families of dependent children as well as unemployed
fathers, local Welfare Departments are not permitted to have able-bodied re-
cipients become involved in work and training programs. The local citizenry
at the local level is very confused by such double standards of welfare admini-
stration at the County level. They cannot understand why their tax funds which
are sent to Washington will not allow that workfare programs are not permitted
in administering the Aid to Families of Dependent Children and Unemployed
Fathers.
Page Three-April 2, 1973
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Re: H. R. 1750 - 93rd. Congress, 1st. Session
We wish to thank you again for your interest in the administration of public
assistance programs by your introduction of H. R. 1750.
Sincerely,
Chester Bielaczyc, Director
Genesee County Department of Social Services
Wisley Bowermanah
Wesley Bowerman, Director
Berrien County Department of Social Services
CB:deh
Enclosures
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
The Flint Journal
Section Five, Pages 69 to 76
Thursday, March 22, 1973
Linden council
favors change
in welfare system
By ROBERT P. WELSHANS
urging them to adopt a similiar resolu-
Journal Fenton Bureau
tion.
LINDEN - Heeding a northern city's
Wenger said he opposes the present
plea, the Linden Village Council has de-
welfare system because it "encourages
cided to join in urging the Legislature to
persons not to work because a living is
encirients
to
work
for
mmidad from theme under the condition
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS It is believed that in any organized society of citizens, the
individual has a right to ask what he can be guaranteed when
he is in trouble, and
WHEREAS There is already a commitment by government to provide serv-
ices to individuals who direct their pleas for assistance to
government, and
WHEREAS The unemployed who seek assistance are often serviced exclu-
sively through a welfare grant because the economy has never
provided sufficient jobs for all those seeking them, and
WHEREAS There is pointed criticism expressed openly by the public
and government on the unemployed who ask for assistance de-
spite a constant search for jobs that do not exist, and
WHEREAS A truly responsive government, concerned with its citizens,
would guarantee employment of the jobless, so that an indi-
vidual could fulfill himself in work and gain the benefits
and respect entitled to him as a citizen.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Michigan County Social Services
Association support the appropriate action by government to
fulfill its obligation to its citizens by guaranteeing jobs
for the jobless, to the point of being employer of last
resort.
Submitted by:
District X, Resolution Committee Chairman
Gerald Servinski, Director
Keweenaw County Department of Social Services
MAR 30 1973
W. F. BAIRD, President
A. A. MILLER, Manager
L. P. LEE, Editor
1
GONGWER
MICHIGAN REPORT
NEWS SERVICE, INC.
Information Pertinent to Legislative and State Department Activities Since 1906
1610 Michigan National Tower
Lansing, Michigan 48933
Telephone (517) 489-4327
REPORT NO. 60, VOLUME 12
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1973
INVESTIGATION OF WELFARE FRAUD CASES PROVES SUCCESSFUL
Newly appointed inspector general in the epartment of Social Services, John
Gambotto Wednesday released figures on investigations of suspected cases of
public assistance abuse.
Department investigators undertook 1,323 cases during the last three months of
1972 and completed 823 investigations, Edward Donald, head of the department's
special investigations unit, said. Almost 32 per cent of these investigations
resulted in referrals to law enforcement officials. In dollar figures, the
investigations unit covering the tri-county metropolitan Detroit area alone
recovered $44,546.
Currently there are 39 investigators and 27 of them are assigned to metropolitan
Detroit. Full-time investigators are also assinged to Ingham, Berrien, Calhoun,
Kent and Saginaw Counties and three more counties are expected to have full-
time investigators assigned within a few weeks, Mr. Donald said.
Experts employed by the unit have also proven successful in the investigations,
he said. A documents examiner, who is a former State Police handwriting analyst
found 434 checks during the latter part of 1972 which had been endorsed by
persons who denied having signed them. "This meant substantial savings in state
funds which otherwise would have been paid out to replace the supposedly
'lost' checks," he said.
In its work the unit has found instances of persons failing to report income,
legal fathers actually living at home when they have been reported to the
department as being absent, clients receiving duplicate assistance by applying
for help in several counties, and frauds carried out by persons providing
services to social services clients.
Complaints instigating the investigations have come from department workers,
quality control auditors, public officials and citizens.
While the investigations unit has been successful in turning up several fraud
cases, Mr. Donald said "I feel there are some areas which still need tightening
up, such as checking of birth records and reverification of eligibility."
Mr. Gambotto also released figures on the department's effort to obtain payments
from fathers in Aid to Dependent Children cases. During 1972 over $28.1 million
was collected, an increase of $11.2 million over 1971.
These payments represent support money collected by friends of the court on
behalf of children receiving the aid and are sent to the state to reduce dollar
for dollar the amount which would otherwise be spent in the form of aid.
To: Mr. Wesley Bowerman
Director of Berrien County Social Welfare
Re: Rent money from A.D.C. Tenants
After much study by the "United Landlords of Berrien County", this is
our summation. The consensus of opinion of the owners of Rental Pro-
perty feel the State could save millions of tax dollars and give the
Landlord the opportunity to improve their properties, giving the tenant
a better place to live.
1. If the State would send the rent monies directly to the Landlord.
2. Checks could be printed and mailed in the County in which the
tenant lives.
3. This would save on individual fraud on tenants who claim they didn't
get their checks. 90% sign them and get replacement money.
4. Money would reach the right party and be used for the intended pur-
pose. This would help the Landlord, who in turn can provide better
housing.
5. It would stop the flighty tenant and make them more responsible.
Many of them destroy our property and most leave, owing much rent.
6. By streamlining this service, many caseworkers could be trained
for other work. (Another savings for the State.) Much of a Service
Worker's time is confined to complaints of non-payment of rents.
Many Landlords refuse to rent to A. D. C. people because of collect-
ions. We strongly recommend that the checks be mailed once a month
to the Landlord.
All of our Members are in favor of reducing their rentals by 10%. We
would save this in time trying to collect rent, we would be guaranteed
against fraud and it would almost eliminate the flighty tenant. Best
of all, it would save the State millions of dollars each year.
1973 THE WASHINGTON POST
HE Delays Welfare Cleanup
Tartan
United Press International
ment of Health, Education and
however. that we need more weed out ineligible and over-
In the face of stiff opposition
Welfare, who conceded last
time to put this into effect."
paid recipients.
from state governors, the ad-
week that the administration
The states will be given as
The cutback originally was
plaid
ministration yesterday aban-
long as two years to complete
doned its highly controversial
proposal had "one or two
the administrative housekeep-
to take effect Jan. 1, then was
threat to begin withholding
flaws" in it.
ing demanded by HEW, fed-
delayed until April 1 after an-
short stop
immediately $689 million in
HEW Under Secretary
eral officials explained,
gry state welfare directors
federal welfare aid from
Frank C. Carlucci told news-
Under the plan announced
protested to HEW, and 34
jackets
states making ments to in-
men here:
Dec. 4 by then HEW Secretary
states and localities hired a
eligible welfare recipients.
"We haven't backed away
Elliot L. Richardson, the de-
law firm to fight the plan.
Formal announcement of
from the principle of not
partment would have withheld
The original plan ordered
the retreat on a major welfare
ing for people who shouldn't
over an 18-month period an es-
states to reach a zero level of
issue came in a Los Angeles
be on welfare rolls. That's
itmated $689 million in federal
overpayments and payments
speech by Secretary Caspar
something everybody agrees
aid from the states as a pen-
to ineligible recipients, and
W. Weinberger of the Depart-
on in principle. We agree,
alty for their alleged failure to
set no timetable. The new
HEW plan gives states until
June 30, 1975, to reduce the
rate of ineligible recipients in
The Day's Activities in Congress
needy families to 3 per cent
and to cut overpayments to 5
per cent.
Senate
be Comm. of Ed. 9:30 a.m. Open 4232
Interier-Water and Power Resources
The latest national survey
DOB.
Subcomte. Mark-up HR 5464-Saline
of state administration of fed-
Meets at 10:30 a.m.
Armed services-Cmie. bus.) nomins.
water prog. approp. auth. 9:45 a.m.
Committees:
CIA Dir. Schlesinger. 10 a.m. Closed.
Open. 2253 ROB.
erally supported welfare aid
Agriculture-World food situation and
212 ROB.
Commerce-Trans. and Aero. Subcemie.
reveals an ineligibility rate of
Intl. agricultural trade. Jehn Hannah,
Labor-Cmie. Bus. 2:15 p.m. Closed.
Airplane hliacking. 10 a.m. Closed.
AID: Vernon Sorensen. Mich State
.
146
2292 POR
6.8 per cent and an overpay-
scottish plaids add
P/Bishat is story for Welfare Roundtable in C.R.A. Trisday
A4
Thursday, April 1973 THE WASHINGTON POST
HEW Delays Welfare Cleanup
Tartan
United Press International
ment of Health, Education and however, that we need more weed out ineligible and over-
In the face of stiff opposition
Welfar who conceded last
time to put this into effect
paid recipients.
from state governors, the ad.
The states will be given as
ministration vesterday aban-
week that the administration
The cutback originally was
plaid
long as two years to complete
doned its highly controversial
propost had "one or two
the administrative housekeep-
to take effect Jan. 1, then was
threat to begin withholding
flaws" in it.
ing demanded by HEW, fed-
delayed until April 1 after an-
short stop
immediately $689 million in
HEW Under Secretary
eral officials explained.
gry state welfare directors
federal welfare aid from
Frank C. Carlucci told news-
Under the plan announced
protested to HEW, and 34
states making payments to in-
men here:
Dec. 4 by then HEW Secretary
states and localities hired a
jackets
eligible welfare recipients.
We haven't backed away
Elliot L. Richardson, the de-
law firm to fight the plan.
Formal announcement of
from the principle of not pay-
partment would have withheld
The original plan ordered
the retreat on a major welfare
ing for people who shouldn't
over an 18-month period an es-
states to reach a zero level of
issue came in a Los Angeles
be on welfare rolls. That's
itmated $689 million in federal
overpayments and payments
speech by Secretary Caspar
something everybody agrees
aid from the states as a pen-
to ineligible recipients, and
W. Weinberger of the Depart-
on in principle. We agree,
alty for their alleged failure to
set no timetable. The new
HEW plan gives states until
June 30, 1975, to reduce the
rate of ineligible recipients in
The Day's Activities in Congress
needy families to 3 per cent
and to cut overpayments to 5
per cent.
Senate
be Comn
of Ed. 9:30 a.m. Open 4232
Interior-Water and Power Resources
The latest national survey
DOB.
Subcomte. Mark-up HR 5464-Saline
of state administration of fed-
Meets at '10:30 a.m.
Armed
Services Cmte. bus.) nomins.
water prog. approp, auth. 9:45 a.m.
Committees:
CIA Dir
Schlesinger. 10 a.m. Closed.
Open. 2253 ROB.
erally supported welfare aid
Agriculture-World food situation and
212 ROB
Commerce-Trans. and Aero. Subcomte.
reveals an ineligibility rate of
Intl. agricultural trade. John Hannah,
Laber-
mte. Bus. 2:15 p.m. Closed.
Airplane hijacking. 10 a.m. Closed.
68 per cent and on overnav.
WRIGHT PATMAN, TEX., CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM PROXMIRE, WIS., VICE CHAIRMAN
RICHARD BOLLING, MO.
JOHN SPARKMAN, ALA.
HENRY S. REUSS, WIS.
J. W. FULBRIGHT, ARK.
MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS, MICH.
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, CONN.
WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, PA.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN,
HUGH L. CAREY, N.Y.
LLOYD M. BENTSEN, JR., TEX.
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, N.J.
Congress of the United States
JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.
BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., N.Y.
CHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.
CLARENCE J. BROWN, OHIO
JAMES B. PEARSON, KANS.
BEN B. BLACKBURN, GA.
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA.
(CREATED PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(a) OF PUBLIC LAW 304, 78TH CONGRESS)
JOHN R. STARK,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
March 26, 1973
Dear Colleague,
Enclosed you will find a chart book which summarizes some of the
findings of a welfare study I am releasing today as Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy. This is a staff study based on data
gathered by the General Accounting Office at my request.
The study, entitled How Public Welfare Benefits are Distributed in
Low-Income Areas, examines how benefits of 100 Federal, State, and local
public welfare programs are distributed in six low-income areas of the
Nation. It is the first such study to document the number, type, and
amount of benefits actually being received by specific households.
The data reveal a dramatic pattern of benefit distribution, ranging
from no benefits up to participation in programs dispensing over $1,000
monthly to one household. Eleven percent of the 1,758 sampled households
received benefits from five or more programs.
The programs discussed include aid to families with dependent children
and other cash public assistance programs; food stamps and commodities;
unemployment insurance, social security and other insurance-type programs;
public housing; medicaid and medicare; day care and manpower training;
legal aid; and many others. In my judgment, the study offers a unique
look at the impact of programs as they operate in combination rather than
one by one as they generally are proposed, legislated, and administered.
It is my hope that you will have the opportunity to review this
chart book and that you will find it informative and useful. We would
be pleased to send you the entire study if you would care to receive it.
Martha
Martha W. Griffiths, Chairman
Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy
Graphic Material For
STUDIES IN PUBLIC WELFARE
Paper No. 6
HOW PUBLIC WELFARE BENEFITS ARE DISTRIBUTED
IN LOW-INCOME AREAS
Based on Data Collected by the
General Accounting Office
A STAFF STUDY
Prepared for the Use of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISCAL POLICY
of the
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
March 26, 1973
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
(Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.)
WRIGHT PATMAN, Texas, Chairman
WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SENATE
RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri
JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama
HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin
J. W. FULBRIGHT, Arkansas
MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS, Michigan
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut
WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
HUGH L. CAREY, New York
LLOYD M. BENTSEN, Jr., Texas
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, New Jersey
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
BARBER B. CONABLE, Jr., New York
CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois
CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
BEN B. BLACKBURN, Georgia
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
John R. Stark, Executive Director
Loughlin F. McHugh, Senior Economist
ECONOMISTS
William A. Cox
Lucy A. Falcone
Jerry J. Jasinowski
John R. Karlik
Richard F. Kaufman
L. Douglas Lee
Courtenay M. Slater
MINORITY
Leslie J. Bander
George D. Krumbhaar, Jr.
Walter B. Laessig
(Counsel)
(Counsel)
2
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISCAL POLICY
MARTHA W. GRIFFITHS, Michigan, Chairman
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SENATE
RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri
WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin
HUGH L. CAREY, New York
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, New Jersey
LLOYD M. BENTSEN, Jr., Texas
BARBER B. CONABLE, Jr., New York
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
Alair A. Townsend, Technical Director
STAFF
Caterina Capobianco
Irene Cox
Sharon S. Galm
Jon H. Goldstein
Robert I. Lerman
James R. Storey
Mary Beth Curry
3
WHY THIS STUDY WAS DONE
Many programs exist which distribute cash, food, housing, medical care, and
other valuable goods and services. These programs generally have been enacted and are
administered separately, despite the fact that many people benefit from more than
one program.
Official surveys (such as the Census) and program statistics do not contain infor-
mation on the full range of these programs. This study was designed to obtain a
picture of who receives benefits from what programs and in what amounts.
The findings have relevance to policy questions such as:
- The adequacy of combined benefits;
- How equitably benefits are distributed;
- The work incentive aspects of combined benefits; and
- The administrative problems created by the operation of 100 programs.
Programs covered include:
- Social Insurance (Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Workmen's
Compensation, Veterans' Compensation);
- Need-based cash (Public Assistance, Veterans' Pensions, General Assistance);
- Food, health, and housing programs;
- Training, scholarships, public employment, and Day Care; and
- Other service programs.
4
WHY THIS STUDY WAS DONE
Many programs exist which distribute cash, food, housing, medical care, and
other valuable goods and services. These programs generally have been enacted and are
administered separately, despite the fact that many people benefit from more than
one program.
Official surveys (such as the Census) and program statistics do not contain infor-
mation on the full range of these programs. This study was designed to obtain a
picture of who receives benefits from what programs and in what amounts.
The findings have relevance to policy questions such as:
- The adequacy of combined benefits;
- How equitably benefits are distributed;
- The work incentive aspects of combined benefits; and
- The administrative problems created by the operation of 100 programs.
Programs covered include:
- Social Insurance (Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Workmen's
Compensation, Veterans' Compensation);
- Need-based cash (Public Assistance, Veterans' Pensions, General Assistance);
- Food, health, and housing programs;
- Training, scholarships, public employment, and Day Care; and
- Other service programs.
4
THE AREAS SAMPLED, AND THE CONDUCT
OF THE STUDY
The study is not based on a nationally representative sample. The costs prohibited
this. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized rigorously to the entire country, or
to all the poor. The findings are statistically valid only for the six low-income areas in
which the study was conducted.
The study is based on a random sample of 1,758 households drawn from six sites.
These are six of the 59 sites which the Census Bureau has designated as 'Low Income'
areas. Four sites are sections of large cities, one includes parts of a medium-sized city,
and one consists of several rural counties. Sites are identified with descriptive rather
than actual names to retain maximum confidentiality.
Since the study sites are low-income areas, it should be expected that the house-
holds sampled will participate more heavily in welfare programs than the general popu-
lation. About one in four of all families in these areas are poor.
Information was collected from program records, not from interviews. Records of
most programs were checked to see if benefits had been received by any household mem-
bers anytime during the year. If they had been received, average monthly amounts
were calculated. Thus, benefits were not necessarily received all at once.
The information was collected and is presented on a household rather than a family
basis. Some households contain several families or more than a simple family. For example,
a young couple with children may have their elderly parents living with them.
5
HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVE BENEFITS?
The number of households which have contact with the public welfare bureaucracy
is far greater than the number receiving cash welfare benefits such as Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Sixty percent of the sample households received at least one benefit. Forty
percent received benefits from two or more programs, 11 percent participated
in five or more programs, on down to almost 1 percent involved in nine to
eleven programs. One household received benefits from eleven different
programs.
The typical beneficiary does not participate in one and only one program.
6
Chart 1. SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER
OF BENEFITS RECEIVED
(Total Sample, All Sites)
Number of
0
1 or
2 or
3 or
4 or
5 or
6 or
7 or
8 or
9 to
Benefits
more
more
more
more
more
more
more
more
11
Percent of
Households
40%
60%
40%
26%
17%
11%
7%
3%
1%
0.8%
7
THERE ARE VARIATIONS FROM SITE TO SITE IN HOUSEHOLD
PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMS
The proportion of households receiving benefits varies widely among the six
sites.
More households received benefits in the two southern cities than in any of the
other sites. This reflects several factors. First, wages are low in these areas,
so that working people can qualify for benefits such as food stamps or commodities.
Second, these cities contain many female-headed families which are eligible for
Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Finally, many households contain more
than one family--such as elderly parents living with grown children. "Doubling
up" increases the likelihood that households will receive benefits.
8
Chart 2. OVER HALF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVE
A BENEFIT; RECIPIENT HOUSEHOLDS OFTEN
RECEIVE SEVERAL BENEFITS
Households by Number of Benefits Received
Households receiving no
Households receiving one or
benefits
more benefits
1 only
2 to 4
5 or more
Eastern
45%
15%
32%
8%
City
South Atlantic
27%
19%
35%
19%
City
Southern
23%
26%
33%
18%
City
Midwestern
45%
21%
27%
7%
City
Western
53%
22%
16%
9%
City
Rural
42%
24%
Counties
26%
8%
9
SOME HOUSEHOLD TYPES ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE
BENEFITS THAN OTHERS
Certain types of households are more likely to receive benefits than others.
These include large households, those with children, and those with household
heads aged 65 or over. Male-headed households tend to be less likely to receive
benefits. These findings are consistent with program eligibility rules and with
the earning levels of the various household types.
10
Chart 3. THE HIGHEST BENEFIT SHARES GO TO
HOUSEHOLDS WITH AGED HEADS, LARGE
HOUSEHOLDS, AND HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN
Characteristics of sample households in urban sites as
Households with:
percent of:
Total households sampled
21%
Households with at least one benefit
Head - Age 65
30%
Households with 5 or more benefits
or Over
35%
57%
Male Head
48%
29%
36%
Dependent
Children
48%
67%
12%
6 or More
17%
Members
30%
11
WHO RECEIVES LARGE NUMBERS OF BENEFITS?
It can happen quite legitimately that households get benefits under five or
more programs. As is shown in Chart 3, certain types of households are more
likely to be multibeneficiaries than others. But, there is no general rule,
just as there is great diversity in the situations of households which receive
very few benefits or none at all.
Chart 4 examines some actual cases to illustrate the diversity of their situations.
Dollar values have been assigned to noncash benefits such as food, health care,
and housing based on their cost to the Government (as in the case of health
care) or their net retail value (as in the case of food stamps). It is probably
true that such goods and services are not as valuable to recipients as is cash.
But to ignore their value altogether is to assume that these noncash benefits
have no value at all. This is clearly not true.
12
Chart 4. EXAMPLES OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING
LARGE NUMBERS OF BENEFITS
A. A couple in Eastern City supporting
B. 17-year old mother of 2 children
C. A 3-generation family of 5 in South-
a young child and the wife's teen-
in South Atlantic City with 8
ern City with 11 benefits:
aged brother with 5 benefits:
benefits:
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
PROGRAM
PER MONTH
PROGRAM
PER MONTH
PROGRAM
PER MONTH
AFDC
$ 21
AFDC
$176
AFDC
$ 79
General assistance
83
Welfare grant for special needs
50
Old age assistance
91
Food stamps
34
Food stamps
20
Social security (old age
Medicaid
123
Medicaid
33
benefits)
77
Public housing
106
Public health services
21
Social security (disability
Neighborhood youth corps
18
Public housing
56
benefits)
131
Benefits, total
$385
Housing relocation grant
2
Veterans pensions
221
Earnings
429
Concentrated employment (CEP)
6
Free school lunches
8
Total income
$814
Neighborhood youth corps
178
Medicare
8
Benefits, total
$542
Medicaid-payment for
Earnings
56
medical services
14
Total income
$598
Medicaid-payment of
medicare premium
6
Rent supplements
55
D. A mother of 10 children in Mid-
E. Elderly husband and wife in Rural
Neighborhood service center
1
western City with 5 benefits:
Counties with 6 benefits:
Benefits, total
$691
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
PROGRAM
PER MONTH
PROGRAM
PER MONTH
AFDC
$616
Old age assistance
$ 85
Food stamps
110
Social security
70
Free school lunches
11
Surplus commodities
22
Public Health services
3
Medicare
372
OEO emergency health
Medicaid-payment for
services
53
medical services
5
Benefits, total
$793
Medicaid-payment of
medicare premium
6
Benefits, total
$560
13
THE SYSTEM IS OFTEN UNFAIR
The public welfare "system" distributes benefits in a way that sometimes seems
arbitrary. It can be more generous to one family than to another with the exact
same income and of exactly the same family size. Some of the poorest households
receive little public aid.
Chart 5 illustrates two types of unfair situations with actual cases.
The upper part of the chart compares two families of four in Eastern City.
Because Household B is not eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), its average income and benefits are far lower than Household A's--even
though the man's earnings are lower than those of the woman receiving AFDC.
The lower part of the chart shows two elderly couples in the Rural Counties
site. Couple C has a small enough social security check that it also qualifies
for welfare for the aged, called old age assistance. So it automatically
qualifies for benefits such as surplus food commodities and medicaid which go
along with public assistance in the Rural Counties site. Couple C had actual
medical expenses averaging $47 a month paid for by medicaid. Medicaid will pay
for many medical expenses not covered by medicare. By virtue of having no
more than $10 "too much" social security, Couple D is ineligible for old age
assistance, free food commodities, and free health care.
14
Chart 5. BENEFITS CAN BE INEQUITABLE
Male - Headed Households Can Get Less
Household A: Woman and 3 Children in Eastern City
Earnings
$355
AFDC
281
Food stamp bonus
46
Public health
32
Total, average monthly income and benefits
$714
Household B: Man, Wife, and 2 Children in Eastern City
Earnings
$346
Unemployment insurance
25
Total, average monthly income and benefits
$371
Public Assistance Can Confer an Advantage
Aged Couple C in Rural Counties
Social security
$184
Old age assistance
65
Surplus commodities
33
Total, average monthly income and benefits
$282
+ Medicaid
+ Medicare
Aged Couple D in Rural Counties
Social security
$259
Total, average monthly income and benefits
$259
+ Medicare only,
No Medicaid
15
HOW WELL OFF ARE HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING BENEFITS FROM MANY PROGRAMS?
Households receiving many benefits do not always escape poverty. Chart 6 shows
the effect that benefits have in reducing poverty for households participating in
five or more programs.
The top bars show that if only the private incomes and none of the benefits of
these households are counted, most beneficiaries, in fact, are poor.
After adding in cash benefits, 67 percent of the households in Southern City
and 29 percent in Eastern City are still poor. This is shown in the second set
of bars.
When food and housing benefits are added too, the percentage of these households
in poverty is reduced to 31 percent in Southern City and 8 percent in Eastern City.
Even if the Government costs of all benefits--such as health and other services--
are added in as if they were income, some households are still poor. But some do
very well. At two of the six sites, the five-benefit households had total private
income and public benefits averaging over $6,500 a year.
Since the typical recipient participates in more than one program and many recipients
have earnings, it is not generally useful to evaluate the adequacy of individual
programs alone. A broader look at all benefits and earnings is necessary.
16
Chart 6. EFFECT OF BENEFITS IN REDUCING POVERTY
For Sample Households Receiving 5 or More Benefits
Proportion of Households
Proportion of Households
in Poverty
Poverty Line
Out of Poverty
Counting Only Private Income:
Southern City (94%)
Eastern City (83%)
After Adding in Cash Benefits:
Southern City (67%)
Eastern City (29%)
After Adding in Food and Housing Benefits:
Southern City (31%)
Eastern City (8%)
After Adding in Health Care and Other Benefits:
Southern City (14%)
Eastern City (4%)
17
HOW DO MULTIBENEFIT PACKAGES COMPARE TO MEDIAN WAGES?
Some low-income people receive no public welfare benefits; others only small
amounts. But there are people who receive as much from welfare programs as they
could earn in a full-time job and as much as their neighbors currently are earning.
Chart 7 examines the benefits received by a specific group in the sample: urban
households with children, receiving five or more benefits, and having no earnings.
Only their cash, food, and housing benefits are included here in order to compare
only those benefits which can be assumed to be consumption items. Thus, benefits
such as medical care, legal services, manpower training, and the like are excluded.
The cash, food, and housing benefits of the households are compared to median wages
for men and women in these low-income areas. Social security payroll taxes have
been subtracted from the median wages, but work expenses and any Federal, State,
and local taxes would reduce the median wages below the amounts shown. Of course,
the benefits shown are tax-free.
Average benefits for this group exceed median wages for women in Eastern and
Southern Cities and would exceed them in at least two of the three other sites
after the wage earners paid taxes and work expenses.
Average benefits are significantly below men's wages only in Midwestern and
Western Cities.
18
Chart 7. COMBINED MONTHLY TAXFREE BENEFITS
COMPARED TO MEDIAN WAGES*
for 42 sample households with children, having
5 or more benefits and no earnings (Urban sites)
$339
$87
$426 Avg. Monthly Benefit
Eastern City
$371
$506
Cash
Food,
Housing
South Atlantic
$228
$50
$278 Avg. Monthly Benefit
$285
City
$387
Median Women's
Wage
$263
$76
$339 Avg. Monthly Benefit
Southern City
$316
$415
Median Men's
Wage
$301
$75
$376 Avg. Monthly Benefit
Midwestern City
$388
$564
$268
$142
Western City
$410 Avg. Monthly Benefit
$481
$555
*Median monthly wages (after Social Security deduction only).
Families subject to Federal Income Tax would have lower net median wages than shown.
19
ARE RECIPIENTS OF MANY BENEFITS BETTER OFF IF THEY WORK?
The structure of public welfare programs does not promote the reasonable objective
that working should make people financially better off in every case. Working can
leave recipients of several programs little better off--and sometimes worse off--
because their benefits are reduced. After their benefits are reduced and after
they net out work expenses and payroll taxes, recipients who go to work may see
little change in their total income. The AFDC grant falls, more must be paid
for the same amount of food stamps and the same public housing unit, and then
there are payroll deductions.
Chart 8 shows the small gain that some beneficiaries would get from earning $1
more. This group is composed of the 111 urban households with children getting
five or more benefits. For 70 percent of these households, $1 more in earnings
will probably net them no more than 33c and as little as zero (or even a negative
amount). Eighteen percent would gain from 33c to 49c on their added dollar, and
only 5 percent would gain from 75c to $1.
20
Chart 8. EARNINGS AREN'T ALWAYS PROFITABLE FOR
BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLDS
Of 111 sampled urban households with children receiving 5 or
more Benefits, $1 more in earnings would be worth.
O to
33¢ to
50¢ to
75¢ to
32¢
49¢
74¢
$1.00
HED STATES POLKIBUS wew OF AWN
STATES
STATES
OF
POURTRUS
AT
UNCH
we
ONE STATES POLICIES UNITED OF
ONE
NEDOBLA
to 70% of
to 18%
to 7%
to 5%
the households
21
DO AFDC HOUSEHOLDS HAVE EARNINGS?
Many of the multibeneficiary households shown in Charts 7 and 8 include AFDC
cases. If AFDC recipients were either unemployed or unemployable, benefit
levels and work incentive features of combined programs might seem unimportant.
But adults in AFDC households do work.
The first bar for each site in Chart 9 shows the proportion of all AFDC households
known to have adult earnings for some part of the year. From about one quarter
to three quarters of the urban AFDC households had earned income in addition to
the AFDC grant for some portion of a year.
The second bar for each site shows the proportion of single-adult AFDC households
which have adult earnings. The AFDC parent was known to have worked in from 19
to 70 percent of these households.
These facts indicate that the work incentive features of AFDC and other programs
are important--and they are important for women heading families, too.
22
Chart 9. MANY AFDC HOUSEHOLDS HAVE EARNINGS
SOMETIME IN A YEAR
31%
Eastern City
19%
South Atlantic
39%
Percent of all sampled AFDC
households with adult earnings
City
42%
70%
Southern City
70%
23%
Midwestern City
Percent of sampled single-
adult AFDC households with
22%
adult earnings
58%
Western City
50%
23
Chart 10. AN EXAMPLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY
Income and Benefits Received by One Nine-Member
Family Over One Year
Household Member:
Source and Duration of Income and Benefits
Aged Household
Private Income
Head
Public Health Services
Private Income
Unemployment Ins.
Second Adult
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Member
Manpower Training
(MDTA)
Food Stamps
Medicaid
Public Health Services
Free School Lunches
Four Children of
Second Adult
Special Milk Program
Medicaid
Aid under Title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Third Adult Member
Concentrated Employment Program
Fourth Adult Member
Public Health Services
Fifth Adult Member
Public Health Services
JULY
AUG.
SEPT.
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
1971
1972
25
REPUBLICAN
CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE
NEWSLETTER NOTES
Ideas for your own newsletter from the
Public Relations Division
512 House Office Building Annex
225-1800
April 3, 1973
Welfare or Warfare?
"Anticipate charity by preventing poverty; assist the reduced fellowman either by a
considerable gift, or a sum of money, or by teaching him a trade, or by putting him in the way of
business, so that he may earn an honest livelihood, and not be forced to the dreadful alternative
of holding out his hand for chairty.' Moses Ben Maimon in the year 1200.
The present format of the war on poverty includes some of all of this solution suggested more
than 700 years ago. And it apparently isn't working now any better than any of the old-time plans.
Why? Poverty today is not a "one-on-one" proposition, from giver to receiver. It's the "in-between"
that seems to be causing all the trouble. An old saying states that charity is first a gift, then an
expectation, then an obligation. This has been the pattern in the U. S. effort to help the poor.
From a few State programs, including the much-described poorhouse, to a national effort, to today's
militant poverty workers and organizations who demand "rights" and bigger benefits, the war against
poverty has strayed from efficiency, and out of public favor.
The chief complaint stems from the welter of multi-level programs administered by the States,
Uncle Sam, cities and localities. One 17-year-old mother of two children has a tax-free income of
$6,504 a year from nine different tax-supported poverty programs. Another mother of 10 gets $793
a month from five different programs. The examples are everywhere.
Another facet is administrative costs that seem to go up in geometric progression as programs
proliferate. In Hamilton County, Tennessee, there are 21 Federally funded agencies, Fourteen of
them operated vans for "social-service clients" at a cost of $2.93 per passenger mile. The Community
Action Program, another tack in the poverty fight, used up to 80 percent of its funds for administrative
expenses. The big money is in poverty, a member of Congress said back in 1967, and the poverty
war still has a huge army of money distributors who are out to expand their empires as rapidly as the
bureaucratic process will allow.
The General Accounting Office says there are more than 100 programs aimed at income
maintenance for which the taxpayers shell out $100 billion a year. Says GAO. No fraud is
necessary to do well under the current programs. II
President Nixon has attempted to dig into the mess. He is being resisted by its creators in
Congress, who offer no alternative, but seem to be saying that throwing a lot of money at poverty
is bound to help someone. It is ironic that with 66 percent more funds to help the poor, 67 percent
more to help the sick, 71 percent more for older Americans and 242 percent more to help the hungry
in this year's budget than in 1968, the LBJ days are considered the heyday of welfare -- and the
President is accused of being stingy.
Where Do All the Dollars Go?
When we look at the Federal budget in terms of billions, we "cannot see the forest for the
trees." Figures this size are incomprehensible to any of US. But what about the individual tax
dollar? How is it split up in this year's budget, as proposed by the President?
As a starter, defense gets 39 cents, down sharply from the 49 cents it took as recently as 1970.
Nevertheless, we are living in the age of science. Weapons are costly. For instance, the Trident
submarine is twice the size of our present Polaris subs and it will cost $45 billion for 30 of these huge,
world-wide undersea rangers. This is a long-term project, but $900 million has been proposed to
start it off
- 2 -
Although most taxpayers fail to realize it, despite the wave of talk about health care and
Federal programs to advance this care, a dime out of every dollar now goes for Federal health
programs. One of the reasons for concern over increasing deficits is the fact that 12 cents, one-
eighth of every tax dollar spent, goes for interest on our national debt. Education and manpower
training get almost a nickle. Income security (not including Social Security) gets 6.81 cents.
Veterans' benefits get 5.72 cents. The rest of the budget is divided as follows: transportation and
commerce, 3.35 cents; community development and housing, 2.4 cents; revenue sharing, 2.94 cents;
international affairs, 1.86 cents; agriculture and rural development, 2.72 cents; natural resources,
1.79 cents; space programs, 1.53 cents; general government, 2.94 cents, and allowances, about a
penny.
Defense, space, international affairs and agriculture are down from 1970. All the rest are
up, with health care and income security up two cents and the others showing steady increases as
defense spending dropped. Revenue sharing is a new category. The picture shows clearly that our
spending priorities are changing to emphasize domestic programs -- government that is helping more
people learn and earn, in other words and away from expanding emphasis on technology and
armaments.
****
Facing Up To It
President Nixon said of our need for a new trade policy: "In choosing an international trade
policy which will benefit all Americans, I have concluded that we must face up to more intense long-
term competition in the world's markets rather than shrink from it. Those who would have US turn
inward, hiding behind a shield of import restrictions of indefinite duration, might achieve short-
term gains and benefit certain groups, but they would exact a high cost from the economy as a whole.
Those costs would be borne by all of US in the form of higher prices and lower real income."
****
Water Over the Dram?
With Congressional hearings being held, it appears that the metric system is about to be upon
us, prepared or no. Business, the scientific community and many other U. S. groups and institutions
are backing our conversion to the decimal system of measurements. In a recent "Peanuts" comic
strip, Lucy solemnly reported that ten decigrams equal one gram, and ten grams equal one grampa.
And that's about all that most of US know about this system.
It all started in France in 1795. The U. S. is the only major industrial nation that doesn't
use it. Under the proposed "Metric Conversion Act," the Secretary of Commerce would have 18
months to develop a national conversion plan. The unit of measurement of distance is the meter,
which is supposedly 1/10,000,000 of the distance measured on the earth's surface from the equator
to the pole. Actually, it is the length of a platinum bar kept in Paris. Metric measurements deal
in such things as millimeters, centimeters, kilometers, hectares, decameters, ares (100 square meters
is an are) centigrams, hectograms, kilograms and, praise be for small favors, the metric ton (1,000
kilograms).
It will be sport for all of US to change if the bill moves through Congress. Some States are
putting their best foot, er, meter, forward and making dual highway signs to get the public accustomed
to the new jargon. Cookbooks will have to be rewritten. Granny's idea of a "dab of this and smidgeon
of that" may have a revival when housewives begin to wrestle with ideas such as an ounce being equal
to .46871 centiliters. Conversion costs will run into the billions before everything is metrified.
Perhaps the language will suffer as much as anything. I can't imagine people saying, "A miss is as
good as 1.609344 kilometers.' Or "all wool and 91.42 centimeters wide."
For those who would like to get a head start, plastic wallet-size metric conversion cards
prepared by the National Bureau of Standards are available for 10 cents each, or $6.25 a hundred,
prepaid, from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C. 20402.
######