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
26080771
label
Welfare Reform Info [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26080771
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Welfare Reform Info [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Margaret “Maggie” Williams' Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26080771
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-2194630-20130359S-Seg2-032-002-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
13d00a776dd62a24
ocrText
THE HENRY J.
KAISER
FAMILY
FOUNDATION
KAISER/HARVARD PROGRAM ON THE
PUBLIC AND HEALTH/SOCIAL POLICY
Survey on Welfare Reform: Basic Values and
Beliefs; Support for Policy Approaches;
Knowledge About Key Programs
January 1995
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL:
9:00 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 1995
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION
Robert J. Blendon, Sc.D.
Drew E. Altman, Ph.D., President
Director, Kaiser/Harvard Program on the
Matt James, Vice President
Public and Health/Social Policy
Communications and Media Programs
Professor and Chairman, Department of Health
2400 Sand Hill Road
Policy and Management
Menlo Park, California 94025
Harvard University School of Public Health
(415) 854-9400 Fax: (415) 854-4800
(617) 432-4502
TABLE 1
DOES THE WELFARE SYSTEM DO MORE GOOD OR MORE HARM?
Views of American Adults By Political Party Affiliation
Total
Dem.
Rep.
The welfare system does more harm than good,
because it encourages the breakup of the
family and discourages work
56%
50%
72%
The welfare system does more good than harm,
because it provides assistance and training
for those who are without jobs and are poor
33%
43%
22%
Don't know/Refused
11%
7%
7%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 2
ARE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE WELFARE ABLE TO WORK?
Views of American Adults
More people who receive welfare
Are able to work
81%
Have disabilities that keep them
from working
9%
Other (vol.)
6%
Don't know
4%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 3
WHAT BOTHERS AMERICANS
ABOUT THE WELFARE SYSTEM
VIEWS OF AMERICAN ADULTS
WORK DISINCENTIVE
49%
COSTS TAXPAYERS TOO
MUCH
14%
BREAKS UP FAMILY
13%
WORSENS CRIME RATE
9%
NOT BOTHERED
8%
OTHER/DON'T KNOW
8%
Source: Kalser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy, January 1995
TABLE 4
DOES WELFARE ENCOURAGE WOMEN TO HAVE
MORE CHILDREN THAN THEY WOULD HAVE IF
THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET WELFARE?
VIEWS OF AMERICAN ADULTS
NO
YES
23%
68%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
9%
Source: Kalser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 5
AMERICANS' VIEWS ABOUT U.S. SPENDING ON WELFARE
Views of American Adults By Political Party Affiliation
Total
Dem.
Rep.
Spend Too Much
64%
57%
78%
Spend Too Little
12%
14%
5%
Spend About Right Amount
17%
26%
9%
Don't Know
7%
3%
8%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 6
AMERICANS' VIEWS OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS
VIEWS OF AMERICAN ADULTS
MOST PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE
MONEY FROM WELFARE
MOST WELFARE RECIPIENTS
REALLY NEED THIS HELP
REALLY WANT TO WORK
44%
40%
10%
12%
DON'T
DON'T
KNOW
KNOW
46%
47%
COULD GET ALONG
DON'T REALLY
WITHOUT IT IF
WANT TO WORK
THEY TRIED
Source: Kalser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 7
MAJOR REASONS WHY PEOPLE
ARE ON WELFARE
VIEWS OF AMERICAN ADULTS
PAYS BETTER THAN SOME
JOBS DO
71%
CHOOSE NOT TO WORK
65%
POOR EDUCATION
64%
HAVING BABIES To
RECEIVE BENEFITS
62%
BREAKDOWN OF THE
FAMILY
57%
DECLINE IN MORAL
VALUES
55%
NOT ENOUGH JOBS
35%
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
BY EMPLOYER
10%
Source: Kalser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 8
AMERICANS' VIEWS OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS
Views of American Adults By Political Party Affiliation
Total
Dem.
Rep.
Most people who receive money from welfare
Could get along without it if they tried
46%
40%
56%
Really need this help
44%
50%
34%
Don't know/Refused
10%
10%
10%
Most welfare recipients
Do not really want to work
47%
46%
58%
Really want to work
40%
44%
30%
Don't know/Refused
12%
10%
13%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 9
AMERICANS' VIEWS ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY
OF JOBS FOR WELFARE RECIPIENTS
Views of American Adults By Political Party Affiliation
Total
Dem.
Rep.
There are jobs available for most welfare recipients who
really want to work
72%
62%
85%
Among all of those who responded to the question:
And most of these jobs pay enough to
support a family
22%
16%
31%
But most of these jobs do not pay enough
to support a family
37%
35%
40%
But don't know if they pay enough or
depends on family size
12%
11%
14%
Jobs are not available
24%
36%
12%
Don't know if jobs are available
4%
2%
3%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 10
AMERICANS' VIEWS OF WELFARE MOTHERS OF YOUNG CHILDREN
Views of American Adults
It's important for a mother with young children to stay at home
even if it means having to provide her with welfare
42%
We should not pay welfare to mothers with young children because
it's so important that people work
35%
Other (vol.)
14%
Don't know/Refused
10%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 11
AMERICANS' VALUES CONCERNING THE WELFARE SYSTEM
Views of American Adults By Political Affiliation
Total
Dem.
Rep.
We shouldn't let people who can't get or hold a job go
hungry or homeless, and we need to continue welfare
payments to these people
44%
44%
45%
We should have a firm limit on how long people can stay
on welfare, regardless of the consequences, in order to
get them to work
43%
43%
44%
Other (vol.)
7%
6%
6%
Don't know/Refused
5%
7%
5%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 12
AMERICANS' VIEWS OF WHO SHOULD BE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE
FOR MAKING SURE THAT NON-WORKING LOW-INCOME PEOPLE
HAVE A MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING
Views of American Adults
Responsibility should be shared
57%
People themselves, friends, and voluntary agencies
should be primarily responsible
26%
Government should be primarily responsible
14%
Don't know
3%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 13
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WELFARE SYSTEM
90% know that more women and children are on welfare than men
A majority (57%) knows that responsibility for running welfare is shared between federal
and state governments
A plurality (32%) knows how much public assistance mothers are receiving each month
71% say they know what Medicaid is and 43% know it pays not only for hospital and
doctor services for poor adults and children, but also for services for the elderly in
nursing homes and for the blind and disabled
A majority (57%) know that most people on welfare are minorities
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 14
AMERICANS' VIEWS ABOUT WHICH GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE
WELFARE PROGRAMS
Views of American Adults
(from a list of 9 programs)
% saying each of the following
is a welfare program
Food stamps
93%
AFDC, or Aid to Families With Dependent Children
85%
Public housing
85%
WIC, or the Women, Infants, and Children program
72%
The school lunch program
62%
Medicaid
60%
SSI, or Supplemental Security Income
43%
Medicare
30%
Social Security
15%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 15
WHAT PUBLIC VIEWS AS WELFARE*
(from a list of 9 programs)
Programs
Billions of dollars
as of FY 1993
Medicaid
$76
Food Stamps
$25
AFDC (Family Support)
$16
Child Nutrition Programs/WIC
$7
Public Housing Assistance
$20
Total Federal Spending
on These Programs
$144
Total Federal Outlays
$1,408
Public's Definition of
Welfare as Percentage of
Total Federal Outlays
10.2%
Source: Congressional Budget Office, 1994 and House Committee on Ways and Means, 1993
*Based on the majority of responses provided in the Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social
Policy Survey, January 1995 and correlated to the federal budget FY1993
TABLE 16
AMERICANS' VIEWS OF THE TWO LARGEST
AREAS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Views of American Adults
(from a list of six programs)
1.
Foreign aid
41%
2(t).
Welfare
40%
2(t).
Interest on the
federal debt
40%
4.
Defense
37%
5.
Social Security
14%
6.
Health
8%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 17
AMERICANS' VIEWS OF ENDING WELFARE PAYMENTS
TO ABLE-BODIED RECIPIENTS AFTER TWO YEARS
Views of American Adults
Favor ending welfare payments to able-bodied welfare recipients,
including women with pre-school children, after two years, and
requiring them to take a job
68%
Would continue to favor even if the job the person
takes pays a low wage that would make it difficult
to support a family
26%
Would continue to favor even if the person is unable
to get a job
16%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 18
AMERICANS' VIEWS ON WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IF WELFARE RECIPIENTS
ARE CUT OFF AFTER A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME AND AFTER EDUCATION,
TRAINING, AND HEALTH AND CHILD BENEFITS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED
Views of American Adults
Favor requiring welfare recipients to do
community service work in exchange for
continued benefits
56%
Favor cutting off benefits and guaranteeing
jobs to recipients
25%
Favor cutting off benefits
10%
Don't know/Refused
10%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 19
THE PRINCIPAL GOAL OF WELFARE REFORM
Views of American Adults By Political Affiliation
Total
Dem,
Rep.
Get people off welfare, but only if we can get them
decent jobs by providing job training and education
63%
66%
60%
Get people off welfare even if it means they have to
take a low-paying job
27%
22%
33%
Get people off welfare regardless of the consequences
6%
7%
5%
Provide people on welfare with more money so that they
have a higher standard of living
2%
5%
2%
Other (vol.)
2%
1%
1%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 20
PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THE WELFARE SYSTEM
Views of American Adults
Don't
Know/
Favor
Oppose
Refused
I. Government Should Provide Training & Support
Government should provide job training for
people on welfare
87%
10%
3%
Government should provide child care to
low-income mothers who are on welfare who
take jobs or are in job training
85%
13%
2%
Government should provide public sector
jobs for people on welfare
74%
21%
5%
II. Government Should Get Tough
Government should require each mother to
report the name of a child's father before
she can receive welfare
81%
16%
3%
Government should limit or deny welfare aid
to non-citizens. This would include most
legal immigrants as well as all illegal
immigrants
64%
27%
9%
Women who have additional children while on
welfare should not receive additional benefits
for those children
59%
34%
8%
Government should set a limit on how fast
the cost of welfare programs can grow,
regardless of how many people may need them
57%
31%
13%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 21
AMERICANS' WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE IN TAXES
OR SEE OTHER PROGRAMS CUT TO PROVIDE JOB TRAINING
AND PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS so PEOPLE CAN GET OFF WELFARE
Views of American Adults
Don't
Know/
Willing
Unwilling
Refused
Job training
53%
40%
7%
Public service jobs
47%
45%
8%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 22
AMERICANS' VIEWS ABOUT ENDING WELFARE BENEFITS TO
UNMARRIED MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN
AND ABOUT CARE IN GROUP HOMES AND ORPHANAGES
Views of American Adults
Don't
Know/
Favor
Oppose
Refused
A proposal that would end all welfare
benefits for unmarried mothers and their
children, even if it means that some
of the children would have to be cared
for in group homes or orphanages
25%
66%
9%
If such a proposal were enacted, which one of the following three things would you prefer that government
do for unmarried mothers with children who cannot support themselves?
The government pays for group homes where mothers
and their children live together
56%
The government provides orphanages for the
children
8%
The government does nothing
8%
None of the above
23%
Don't know
5%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 23
AMERICANS' VIEWS OF WHO SHOULD BE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE
FOR MAKING SURE THAT NON-WORKING LOW-INCOME PEOPLE
HAVE A MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING
Views of American Adults
Total
Dem.
Rep.
Government should be primarily responsible
14%
20%
7%
People themselves, friends, and voluntary
agencies should be primarily responsible
26%
22%
27%
Responsibility should be shared -
57%
54%
62%
Among those who believe the responsibility should be shared:
With government role lasting only for a
limited time
71%
63%
77%
With government role lasting as long
as it takes for the individual to get a job
25%
33%
17%
But don't know how long government role
should last
4%
2%
5%
Don't know who should be primarily responsible
3%
4%
4%
Source: Kaiser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 24
STATES VS. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
QUESTION: REGARDING WELFARE REFORM, DO YOU
THINK THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SHOULD
EXPERIMENT AT STATE
LEVEL
52%
REFORM AT NATIONAL
LEVEL
29%
LEAVE WELFARE AS IS
7%
ELIMINATE ALL WELFARE
BENEFITS
6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
7%
Source: Kalser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 25
HOW MUCH STATE FLEXIBILITY?
QUESTION: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS COMES CLOSER TO YOUR POINT OF VIEW:
(1) The federal government has to set guidellnes when It gives money to states for welfare
In order to assure that the states will treat everyone fairly and do the right thing for poor
people.
(2) Each state should be able to determine on Its own the best way to ald poor people and the
federal government should Just give them the money without telling them what to do.
STATEMENT ONE
50%
STATEMENT TWO
36%
OTHER
7%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
7%
Source: Kalser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
TABLE 26
THE WELFARE/MEDICAID "SWAP"
QUESTION: TODAY, THE COSTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WELFARE AND THE MEDICAID
PROGRAM ARE SHARED BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS. RECENTLY SOME
PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED DIVIDING THESE RESPONSIBILITIES DIFFERENTLY, WITH THE
STATES BEING IN CHARGE OF WELFARE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKING THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYING FOR THE HEALTH CARE OF POOR PEOPLE. DO YOU
FAVOR OR OPPOSE THIS "SWAP" PROPOSAL?
FAVOR
58%
OPPOSE
24%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
18%
Source: Kalser/Harvard Program on the Public and Health/Social Policy Survey, January 1995
HUMAY
STATE
fulture SECRETARY Of HEAL TH AND HUMAN SERVICES
WASHINGTON DC 20201
USA
FEB 13 1995
The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter expresses the Administration's views on the Chairman's mark for welfare reform
legislation under consideration by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human
Resources.
The Administration shares the commitment of the Congress and the American people to real
welfare reform that emphasizes work, parental responsibility, state flexibility, and the
protection of children. Last year. the President submitted a bold welfare reform bill, the
Work and Responsibility Act of 1994, which embodied these values. It imposed tough work
requirements while providing opportunities for education, training, child care and supports to
working people. It included a stringent set of child support enforcement provisions. It
required each teen mother to live at home, stay in school and identify her baby's father. It
increased state flexibility without sacrificing accountability. And it maintained a basic
structure of protections for children.
The Administration looks forward to working cooperatively with the Congress in a bipartisan
way to pass bold welfare reform legislation this year. The Administration has, however,
serious concerns about a number of features of the Chairman's mark that appear to
undermine the values to which we are all committed. The Administration seeks to end
welfare as we know it by promoting work, family and responsibility, not by punishing poor
children for their parents' mistakes. Welfare reform will succeed only if it successfully
moves people from welfare to work.
Work
For years, Republicans and Democrats alike have agreed that the central goal of welfare
reform must be work. That is still our goal: People who can work ought to go to work and
earn a paycheck not a welfare check. The Administration believes that no adult who is able
to work should receive welfare for an unlimited time without working. The Administration
believes that from the first day someone comes onto welfare, he or she should be required to
participate in job search, job placement, education, or training needed to move off welfare
and into a job quickly. It is government's responsibility to help ensure that the critical job
placement, training, and child care services are provided. Individuals who are willing to
work should have the opportunity to work and not be arbitrarily cut off assistance.
The Administration therefore has serious concerns about the Chairman's mark before you:
It eliminates requirements that recipients participate in job search, education,
work or training as a condition of receiving welfare, and ends any
responsibility of state welfare systems to provide education, training and
placement services to move recipients from welfare to work. The proposed
legislation effectively repeals the bipartisan Family Support Act signed by
President Ronald Reagan in 1988.
The proposed legislation includes only minimal and unenforceable
requirements that recipients work. The bill requires only that persons on the
rolls for more than 2 years engage in "work activities" loosely defined by the
state welfare bureaucracy, rather than a real work requirement. The proposed
participation standards are very low. In many ways, the work requirements
are even weaker than those in current law.
The proposed legislation provides no assurance of child care to recipients who
work or are preparing to work--even if a state requires them to participate. It
offers no promise of child care for those who leave welfare for work or for
those who could avoid falling onto welfare if they had some help with child
care. While it repeals provisions of existing law that provide funding for child
care, this bill is silent on whether any additional funds will be available for
subsidized child care for low income working families.
The proposed legislation repeals the current rule that anyone who leaves
welfare for work can receive Medicaid for an additional year to ease the
transition. This would further reduce health care coverage and make it harder
for people to move from welfare to work.
The proposed legislation would deny all cash assistance to families that have
received assistance for more than five years, even if the adult in the family is
unable to find a job or prevented from holding a job because of illness or the
need to care for a disabled family member. Children would be seriously
jeopardized even if their parents cannot find any work.
The Administration supports an alternative approach that would genuinely transform the
welfare system into a transitional system focused on work. It would have strict requirements
for recipients to participate in and clear responsibilities for states to provide education,
training and placement assistance; it would have serious time limits after which work would
be required; it would ensure that children would not be left alone when parents were working
by providing assistance for child care; it would put parents to work, not just cut them off;
and it would ensure that children can expect support from two parents.
2
Parental Responsibility
The Administration believes that welfare reform should recognize the responsibility and
encourage the involvement of both parents in their children's lives. The Administration
considers child support enforcement to be an integral part of welfare reform, particularly
because it sends a strong message to young people about the responsibility of both parents to
support their children. The Administration was pleased that you had agreed to add child
support enforcement to your welfare reform bill, and sorry that your proposals are not yet
part of the bill now under consideration. The Administration looks forward to working
closely with you on this issue in the coming weeks.
o
The only child support provision included in the Chairman's mark is one that
allows states to reduce payments to children for the first 6 months if paternity
has not been legally established. This provision seems ineffectual and unfair.
Even if a mother fully cooperates by giving detailed information identifying
the father and his possible location, and even if the state is diligent in pursuing
the father. it can easily take 6 months to get paternity legally established.
There is no reason why the child should be punished during this period.
The Administration believes that it makes far more sense to deny benefits entirely to any
parent who refuses to identify the father or to cooperate in locating him. However, once the
mother has done all she can, the family should qualify for aid, and then the state should
establish paternity within one year.
The Administration believes that the welfare system should encourage the formation and
support of two-parent families. The Administration is therefore concerned about an
important omission in the proposed legislation:
o
The proposed legislation would encourage the break-up of families by
repealing the requirement that states provide cash assistance to two-parent
families in which a parent is unemployed or unable to work. It allows states
to discriminate against married, two-parent families by treating single-parent
families better than two-parent families.
The Administration supports an approach that both encourages the formation of two-parent
families and makes sure that both parents take responsibility for children in all cases.
Teen Pregnancy
The Administration and the American people agree that the best reform of welfare would be
to ensure that people do not need it in the first place. Welfare reform must send a very
strong message to young people that they should not get pregnant or father a child until they
are ready and able to care for that child, and that if they do have children, they will not be
3
able to escape the obligations and responsibilities of parenthood. We must be especially
concerned about the well-being of the children who are born to young mothers, since they
are very likely to grow up poor.
The Administration therefore has serious concerns about the bill before you:
The proposed legislation would deny all federal cash benefits for eighteen
years to any child born to an unmarried mother under 18, as well as to the
parent. This provision appears to punish children for their entire childhood--
18 years--for the mistakes of their parents.
The proposed legislation does not require that teen mothers live at home, stay
in school, and identify the child's father. It weakens requirements in current
law, and may make the prospects for mother and child even worse.
The proposed legislation establishes only minimal expectations for states to
provide services to unmarried parents, and provides no additional funds to
support them.
The Administration supports an alternative approach that would require minor mothers to live
at home, stay in school, make progress toward self-sufficiency, and identify the father of the
child. The Administration also supports a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. It is
time to enlist parents and civic, religious, and business leaders in a community based strategy
to send a clear message about abstinence and responsible parenting. The Administration also
supports a state option not to increase benefits for children born to mothers on welfare. This
decision should be made by the state, not the federal government.
State Flexibility with Accountability
The Administration embraces the creativity and responsiveness of states, and the
opportunities for real reform when states have the flexibility to design and administer welfare
programs tailored to their unique circumstances and needs. Already this Administration has
granted waivers to nearly half the states for welfare reform demonstrations. National welfare
reform should embody the values of work and responsibility in a way that assures taxpayers
that federal money is being spent prudently and appropriately. For reform to succeed, the
funding mechanisms for welfare should not put children or states at risk in times of
recession, population increase or unpredictable growth in demand.
In this context, the Administration has serious concerns about the proposed legislation:
The spending cap in the proposed legislation makes no allowances for potential
growth in the need for cash assistance because of economic downturn,
population growth, or unpredictable emergencies. It could result in states
4
running out of money before the end of the year. and thus having to turn away
working families who hit a "bump in the road" and apply for short-term
assistance. It could preclude states from investing in job placement, in work
programs. in education and training, and in supports for working families.
The proposed legislation removes the requirement that states match federal
funds with their own state funds. With none of their own money at risk, states
will have many fewer incentives to spend the funds efficiently and effectively
to improve performance and increase self-sufficiency.
The proposed legislation provides virtually no accountability. There are no
incentives for good performance and virtually no penalties for failure. There is
no provision for the recovery of monies paid out fraudulently or in error.
There are no mechanisms for ensuring that states are actually spending the
money on needy children rather than on state bureaucracies, or for monitoring
whether federal money is being used to help parents gain self-sufficiency,
require work, and enforce parental responsibility. Indeed, the federal
government is forbidden from taking any meaningful steps to ensure program
performance and accountability.
The Administration supports proposals that significantly increase state flexibility but also
ensure accountability for achieving national goals. The Administration supports a funding
mechanism that will not put children and states at risk down the road, and that enables states
to succeed in moving people from welfare to work and in supporting working families. The
Administration has significant doubts about the ability of a pure block grant funding
mechanism to adequately protect both children and states.
Protection of Children
The Administration recognizes that the protection of children is the primary goal both of cash
assistance programs and of child welfare and child protective services. Cash assistance
programs assist families to care for children in their own homes. Child protection services
help those children who are abused or neglected or at risk of abuse by their parents and who
need special in-home services or out of home placements to assure their safety. Strengthening
families, and where appropriate, preventing removal of children from their homes also are,
key goals of child protection services. There are problems in a number of areas.
Denial of Benefits to Children on AFDC
The legislative proposals that would reform cash assistance have a number of provisions that
would put vulnerable children at greater risk.
5
As noted above. the legislation would deny cash assistance to children of
unmarried minor mothers for their entire childhood, to children born while the
parent was on welfare. and to children whose parent had received welfare for
more than five years. whether or not a job was available or the parent was
unable to work. The funding caps could have the effect of denying cash
assistance to children when states used up their allocated funds. for whatever
reasons. Children in low income working families, who may be forced onto
cash assistance in times of economic downturn, could be most affected.
Child Protection Services
Some of these children could well come into a system of child protection services that is
already seriously overburdened and that is failing to provide the most essential services.
Reported child maltreatment and out-of-home placements have both been increasing sharply.
Many state systems are in such distress that they have been placed under judicial oversight.
The proposed legislation responds to these increasingly serious problems by consolidating
existing programs that protect children into a block grant with nominal federal oversight.
The Administration has serious concerns about this approach.
The proposed legislation caps spending for child protection programs at a level
considerably lower than baseline projections. This could lead to uninvestigated
maltreatment reports, and to children being left in unsafe homes with minimal
services. It could also seriously hamper states' efforts to improve their child
abuse prevention and child protection systems.
The proposed legislation eliminates the adoption assistance programs, and
leaves it up to states whether they will significantly sustain the subsidies that
enable many special needs children to find permanent homes, and whether they
will honor commitments to those adoptive families that now receive subsidies.
o
The proposed legislation virtually eliminates federal monitoring and
accountability mechanisms. It makes it impossible for the federal government
to ensure the protection of children.
o
The proposed legislation is silent on the formula for allocating funds to the
states. Because of serious imbalances among the states in spending on child
protection, it is hard to imagine a formula that would not disadvantage either
states that have been heavy spenders, or states that are only beginning to
improve their systems.
Substantial improvements need to be made in the child protection system and in the federal
role in overseeing that system. The Administration supports a careful and thoughtful review
of the programs before actions are taken that might seriously harm millions of vulnerable
children.
6
Denial of Benefits to Disabled Children on SSI
The Administration is deeply troubled by the changes proposed in the program designed to
help disabled children--SSI.
The proposed legislation essentially eliminates SSI benefits for children. with
the exception of a small group of children currently receiving benefits. Within
6 months, over one hundred thousand disabled children would lose eligibility
for SSI benefits--some would lose medical protection as well. And in the
future, no child, no matter how disabled, will be eligible for any cash benefits
for SSI, except if cash benefits prevent them from having to be
institutionalized. These proposals appear to penalize parents who are
determined to care for their child no matter what the economic consequences
for the family. SSI recipients are among the neediest and most vulnerable
children, in the poorest families.
Some of the money saved is put into a new block grant for services to disabled
children, which would require the creation of a new state bureaucracy to
decide on appropriate services. This idea is untested, and no one knows what
impact it will have on the most vulnerable of children and the parents who
care for them. The 5-year cut off in AFDC for all persons along with the
elimination of SSI cash for disabled children may leave these children
extremely vulnerable.
The Administration sees the need for careful reform in this area, with its potential for serious
harm to extremely vulnerable children. Last year the Congress established a Commission on
Childhood Disability to look into these issues in consultation with experts from the National
Academy of Sciences. The Commission will provide its report to the Congress later this
year. The Administration believes prudence dictates waiting for this short time until this
bipartisan commission, following a thorough review of all aspects of this important program,
has an opportunity to make recommendations.
Benefits to Legal Immigrants
The Administration strongly believes that illegal aliens should not be eligible for government
welfare support. But the blanket prohibition of all benefits to legal immigrants who are not
yet citizens is too broad. and would shift substantial burdens to state and local taxpayers.
These legal immigrants are required to pay taxes. Many serve in the armed forces, and
contribute to their communities. The Administration strongly favors a more focused
approach of holding sponsors accountable for those they bring into this country and making
the sponsors' commitment of support a legally binding contract.
7
In summary, the Chairman's mark espouses goals for the reform of welfare--work. parental
responsibility, prevention of teen pregnancy and state flexibility--that the Administration and
the American people share. But the translation of general goals into specific legislation
misses the mark in fundamental ways. The proposed legislation does not represent serious
work-based reform. It does nothing to move people from welfare to work, and it does not
require everyone who can work go to work. It neither holds state bureaucracies accountable
nor cushions state taxpayers against recession. It puts millions of children at risk of serious
harm. There are alternative approaches to reform that achieve our mutual goals in far more
constructive and accountable ways.
The Administration reiterates its commitment to real welfare reform and its desire to work
cooperatively with Congress to achieve it.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the transmittal of
this report to Congress.
A similar letter was sent to Representative Harold E. Ford.
Sincerely,
DG see
Donna E. Shalala
cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources
8
DRAFT
Summary of the Shaw Welfare Proposal (February 10)
TITLE I: BLOCK GRANT TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
Block Granting of AFDC: Eliminates all existing statutory language on the purposes,
administration and requirements of the AFDC, JOBS and EA programs and replaces them
with a block grant to states. Eliminated, for example, are provisions on individual
entitlements, fair hearings, state financial participation, consistent standards of need, who in
the family is eligible, and statewide program availability. Separately, states would be
required to operate, child support, child protection, and foster care and adoption programs.
Funding: The block grant would be $15.355 billion for each year from 1996 through 2000.
Administration estimates show that this would save approximately $13 billion over 5 years.
State Allotment: The block grant money would be a capped entitlement to states. Each state
would be allotted an amount equal to their average proportion of AFDC spending for 1991
through 1993.
Rainy Day Funds: States may put unspent amounts of block grant funds into a rainy day
account for years when more money is needed. Amounts above 120% of their annual
allocation may be transferred into the state's general revenue fund. There would also be a
national rainy day account of $1 billion that states may borrow from and must pay back
within 3 years.
Work requirements: All recipients on the rolls for 24 months (including recipients currently
on AFDC) would be required to be in a work activity, unless under age 20 and enrolled in
school. For most states, this implies a participation rate of 40% or more. By statute a state's
total work participation rate would be set at 2% in 1996 and would rise to 20% by 2003.
Educational and training services would be allowed but not required. No definitions for
standards for work activity are provided. Child care would not be guaranteed.
State Flexibility: States would determine all rules relating to benefit levels and eligibility
criteria. States may pay benefits to interstate immigrants at the level of their original state for
up to 12 months. States would be allowed to transfer up to 20% -- or 30% - of the funds to
other block grants.
State Requirements: Benefits must be used to serve families with a minor child. States are
required to submit annual data on several measures and must submit to a bi-annual audit.
Additionally, under provisions from title III of this act, state social service agencies would be
required to provide the name and address of illegal aliens with children to the INS.
Prohibitions on States: States cannot use federal block grant funds to provide benefits to:
(1) families who have been on the rolls for 5 cumulative years;
(2) Individuals that are receiving SSI or OAA (current law);
(3) non-citizens (except refugees and/or aged non-citizens who have resided in the U.S. more
than 5 years):
(4) minor mothers with children born out-of-wedlock;
(5) children born while on AFDC (i.e., family cap); and
(6) families not cooperating with the state child enforcement agency or who have not assigned
to the state the child's claim rights against non-custodial parents (current law).
(7) Additionally, beginning 1 year following the enactment of the bill, states must pay a
02/14/95
10:30
002/002
Welfare Reform Mark-up Summary - continued
Penalties: If an audit determines that funds were spent inappropriate to the legislation, the
misspent amounts can be withheld from future payments to the state. Failure to provide
required performance data would be a 3% reduction state annual grant. Failure to participate
in Income Eligibility Verification System results in a penalty of 1% of state annual grant.
Time Limits: AFDC would no longer be an entitlement to individuals. States would be
prohibited from using federal block grant dollars to provide benefits to a family that has been
on the rolls 5 years. Since states determine all rules relating to benefit levels and eligibility,
they could establish any time limit.
Medicaid: Transitional Medicaid for recipients who leave due to employment would be
eliminated. Recipients of assistance would be eligible for Medicaid. Current recipients that
become ineligible for aid would retain Medicaid eligibility.
TITLE II: CHILD PROTECTION BLOCK GRANT
Block Grant for Child Protection Services: The current open-ended entitlement program
for IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program and the IV-B Child Welfare Services
program and Family Preservation and Support program. along with a number of discretionary
programs related to child abuse and neglect, would be consolidated into a block grant to
states.
Funding: The funding would be $4.145 billion in FY 1996, $4.308 billion in FY 1997,
$4.471 billion in FY 1998, $4.631 billion in FY 1999, and $4.789 billion in FY 2000.
Administration estimates show that resulting savings would be $5.7 billion over 5 years.
State Allotment: The block grant would be a five year capped entitlement to the states using
(not yet specified in bill).
State Eligibility for Funds: States must provide HHS with information on how they intend
to use the funds and provide a series of certifications ensuring that procedures are in place on
reporting of abuse and neglect and acting on those reports. removal of children and their
placement in safe and nurturing settings, and for achieving permanent placement. A
declaration of a state's quantifiable goals and their progress is also required.
Purpose and Use of Funds: States may use funds in any manner they so choose to
accomplish the purposes specified in the law. The purposes are identifying and assisting
families at risk of abusing or neglecting their children; operating a system of receiving reports
on abuse or neglect; investigating families reported; assisting troubled families in providing
proper protection and nurturing their children; providing foster care; making timely decisions
about permanent living arrangements; and continuing evaluation and improvement of child
protection laws, regulations and services. Twenty percent of the funds can be transferred to
the block grant under Title 1, the Social Services Block Grant, the food and nutrition block
grant, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
Penalties: If a required audit finds that states have used funds not consistent with the law,
funds are to be withheld the following year. However, not more than 25 percent of a
quarterly payment can be withheld. Also, the annual grant will be reduced by 3 percent if
states fail to submit within 6 months the required data report.
2
02/14/95
10:25
002/003
Child Protection Goals: States are required to protect children. investigate reports of abuse
and neglect promptly, have permanency planning in place for children removed from their
homes and dispositional hearings within 3 months of a fact-finding hearing, and out-of-home
placements reviewed every 6 months unless the child is already in a long term placement.
Citizen Review Panels: States are required to establish citizen review panels for each
metropolitan region that is broadly representative of the community and meets at least
quarterly. The panel is to review specific cases to determine state compliance and make a
report available to the public.
Data Collection and Reporting: Annual state data reports are required to be submitted to
HHS that includes basic aggregate data on the numbers of children abused and neglected. in
foster care. that received services. and other similar information. States must also provide
data measuring their progress towards the goals in the law and a summary response to the
citizen review panels findings and recommendations. The Secretary of HHS issues an annual
report of this data and provides it to the public.
Limitation on Federal Authority: Other than what's specified in the law, the Secretary
cannot regulate the conduct of states or enforce any provision of the law.
TITLE III: RESTRICTING WELFARE FOR ALIENS
NonCitizens Ineligible for Assistance: Under these provisions, except for the exceptions
noted below, noncitizens would be ineligible for most federal assistance programs. However,
adults and children would remain eligible for emergency medical services and immunizations,
and several educational and training programs. States would be allowed to use state resources
to provide other benefits to noncitizens at state option.
Exceptions: Noncitizens over 75 (who have resided in the U.S. at least 5 years) are eligible
for benefits. Refugees are eligible for benefits for up to five years after the date of their
arrival. Other noncitizens currently living in the U.S. would become ineligible 1 year after
the enactment of the provisions and would receive notification of their ineligibility.
Sponsorship: Sponsorship documents would become legally binding until the noncitizen
attained citizenship.
TITLE IV: SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME REFORMS
Denial of Benefits to Addicts: Individuals diagnosed with drug or alcohol addiction would
no longer be eligible for SSI or Medicaid.
SSI Restrictions to Disabled Children and Medical Services Block Grant: Cash benefits
would be restricted. Children would only receive cash benefits or new medical services based
only on the medical listing criteria, not the individual functional assessment. Current SSI
children receiving cash benefits because of a disability under the medical listing would
continue to be eligible for cash, but children not already under SSI will only receive cash
payments if they are institutionalized or would be in an institution if the cash payment did not
exist. Children considered disabled but not eligible for cash benefits will be eligible for
additional medical services under 1 block grant. This block grant would be an entitlement to
3
02/14/95
10:26
003/003
Welfare Reform Mark-up Summary - continued
states for authorized medical and non-medical services to those children who qualify (those
children eligible for SSI cash benefit or who are not eligible for cash but are disabled due to a
condition in the medical listing).
4
02/14/95
10:30
001/002
Welfare Reform Daily Talking Points
Monday, February 13, 1995
WELFARE REFORM MUST BE STRONG ON WORK,
NOT CRUEL TO CHILDREN
Today, Clay Shaw's House Subcommittee on Human Resources begins marking up
the Personal Responsibility Act, the welfare reform plan contained in the Contract
with America. Over the past week, Democrats have united against the Republican
proposal, which is tough on children and low-income families, but weak on requiring
work. As House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt said on Friday, "for the
Republicans, welfare reform is just a way of passing the buck, kicking people off the
welfare rolls, and leaving innocent children out in the street."
In fact, the work requirements in the Personal Responsibility Act would be
weaker than those under current law. In 1996, under current law, 11.5
percent of welfare recipients (595,000 people) would be working -- either in
part-time private sector jobs or in mandatory work programs. In contrast, under
the Republican plan, only two percent of welfare recipients (105,000 people)
would be required to participate in "work activities" in 1996.
President Clinton's principles for welfare reform will not change. As he said in
his State of the Union address: "We have to help those on welfare move to
work as quickly as possible, to provide child care and teach them skills if that's
what they need for up to two years. And after that, there ought to be a simple
hard rule: anyone who can work must go to work."
This Administration believes that:
Welfare reform must be about a paycheck, not a welfare check. We won't
have ended welfare as we know it until the central focus of the program is to
move people off welfare and into a private sector job so that they can support
themselves and their families.
Our goal must be to lift people up from dependence to independence, not to
punish them because they happen to be poor, young, or unmarried. We intend
to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis, but we continue to oppose any
plan to deny assistance to young mothers, break up families, punish children
for their parents' past mistakes, or put children in orphanages.
Tough child support enforcement must be a centerpiece of welfare reform.
We're pleased that House Republicans intend to adopt our proposals for child
support enforcement, which was a key agreement reached at the Working
Session on Welfare Reform. If we're going to end welfare as we know it, we
must make sure that all parents -- fathers and mothers alike -- take
responsibility for the children they bring into this world.
Clinton's Welfare Stance
File
THE Welfam : WASHINGTON POST
MONDAY, MAY 20, 1996
Comes Under GOP Fire
Republicans Attack President's Credibility
By Judith Havemann
dent has approved 60 experiments
Washington Post Staff Writer
in 38 states.
"There is a quiet revolution going
Republicans attempted to regain
on out there," Emanuel said.
the offensive on one of their most
Republican governors have at-
critical campaign issues yesterday,
tacked Clinton's waiver-by-waiver
attacking President Clinton's credi-
reform policies as costly and de-
bility on welfare. GOP leaders criti-
meaning because they require gov-
cized Clinton for supporting a revo-
ernors to negotiate with Health and
lutionary Wisconsin welfare abolition
Human Services officials over the
plan while sending weaker federal
terms of state initiatives.
legislation to Capitol Hill.
States have considerable flexibili-
In his Saturday radio address, the
president embraced Wisconsin's pro-
ty in determining eligibility and ben-
efits but must adhere to national
posal to eliminate welfare and re-
rules to obtain their share of $23 bil-
quire all recipients to work.
But House Repúblican leaders, in
lion in federal funds for the poor.
a letter to the president, said "an
Clinton has approved every
analysis of your current national wel-
state's request for a waiver since he
fare proposal shows that what's
took office, Emanuel said. But Re-
good enough for Wisconsin is not
publicans complain that Clinton has
good enough for the nation. Your na-
tional proposal runs in the opposite
direction of Wisconsin's."
"The American
The letter, signed by House
Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), Ma-
people expect the
jority Leader Richard K. Armey
(Tex.), Ways and Means Committee
president to be a
Chairman Bill Archer (Tex.) and hu-
man resources subcommittee Chair-
person of principle,
man E. Clay Shaw Jr. (Fla.), was
sent as Republicans expressed out-
and his whole
rage over Clinton's radio speech.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called
campaign is based
the Clinton reelection campaign
"shameless" in the way it has
on a belief somehow
usurped Republican ideas the presi-
dent had not previously endorsed.
that the American
"The American people expect the
president to be a person of principle,
people are suckers."
and his whole campaign is based on a
belief somehow that the American
- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
people are suckers and will suffer
from some kind of amnesia," McCain
forced states to abandon key ele-
said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
ments of their proposals in order to
Clinton's likely opponent, Senate
win waivers.
Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-
While Clinton praised Wisconsin's
Kan.), marveled at the president's
proposal, he stopped short of saying
rapid reaction to campaign issues;
he would approve a waiver.
Clinton's radio speech came three
Liberal groups have been critical
days before Dole is to campaign in
of the plan proposed by Wisconsin
Wisconsin.
Gov. Tommy G. Thompson (R), who
"We go to the states, like we go
is frequently mentioned as a possible
up to Wisconsin, to talk about wel-
vice presidential candidate.
fare and then Clinton announces he
"The Wisconsin welfare plan re-
may give Wisconsin a waiver," Dole
lies heavily upon today's unusually
told reporters Saturday night en
strong Wisconsin economy to justify
route to Florida, where he cam-
the permanent elimination of a safe-
paigned and relaxed yesterday. "If
ty net for the state's children," said
we go to enough states, we may
Cliff Johnson, director of programs
straighten out the country."
and policy for the Children's Defense
Dole plans to propose mandatory
Fund. "It also threatens to push
drug testing for welfare recipients in
thousands of young children into un-
a speech this week, Newsweek re-
der-funded, unsafe child care," put-
ported.
Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott
ting children "in great jeopardy over
(R-Miss.) said on NBC's "Meet the
the long haul."
Press" that Congress will send Clin-
In their letter to Clinton, the
ton another welfare and Medicaid
House leaders called for "national
reform bill within two months "and
welfare reform this year."
he will say nice things and then he'll
They said Clinton's legislative
veto it."
proposal was riddled with exemp-
Senate Democratic Leader Thom-
tions, sham requirements and inflex-
as A. Daschle (D-S.D.) just laughed
ible federal requirements.
and said, "Well, if it is extreme, you
"Your welfare reform proposal
bet you he'll veto it."
does little to encourage families to
"The president has been very con-
support themselves, it encourages
sistent in making sure welfare re-
continued welfare instead of work
form one way or another is a reali-
and it perpetuates the misguided
ty," said Rahm Emanuel, a Clinton
practice of providing welfare to non-
aide who coordinates welfare policy
citizens," they wrote.
at the White House.
Clinton's proposed replacement of
Within four months of becoming
the nation's main welfare program,
president, Clinton began approving
Aid to Families with Dependent
waivers of federal rules to allow
Children, with temporary assistance
states to experiment with changes in
is "largely a semantic exercise," the
welfare, Emanuel said. The presi-
letter said.
The prayer continues:
"There's no enthusiasm for Dole,
By Marc Fisher
AI
"We have killed our unborn and
that's for sure," Wright says. "But
Washington Post Staff Writer
called it choice. We have shot abor-
without trying to be vicious, I think
A member of the Rev. Joe Wright's flock
tionists and called it justifiable."
those Christians who vote will vote
who happens to be a Kansas state legislator
His opponents have called Wright
for anybody who's running against
called the minister at home in Wichita with a
all the usual names one calls the reli-
Clinton. They see Clinton as the
proposal: If you're going to be at the state capi-
gious right in American politics
standard-bearer for everything they
tol tomorrow, why don't you honor us by deliv-
these days-extremist, intolerant,
don't believe in.
ering the opening prayer?
hate-filled. But Wright's history in
"The sad thing is you don't hear
Normally, Wright doesn't put his prayers on
Wichita doesn't quite fit those labels.
absolutes from either of them. They
paper, but since the legislature required a writ-
"I'm known as a loving fellow,"
dance around and try to please ev-
ten copy, the minister sat down that evening to
Wright says. "I don't like conflicts."
eryone. I don't do that."
jot a few lines.
He has recruited members of his
That was in January. Since then, the prayer
nearly all-white Central Christian
Stark Prayer Sparks an Absolute Political Furor
Evangelical Minister's Unyielding Views of Good, Evil Roil Kansas Capitol and the Nation
Wright wrote in 30 minutes has sparked angry
Church to join with members of
walkouts in two state legislatures, an unprece-
black churches in prayer patrols on
dented two readings on Paul Harvey's ABC Ra-
the streets of gang-infested neigh-
dio newscast, more than 6,500 phone calls to
borhoods.
Wright's church and so many boxes of mail that
In 1991, when more than 2,000
the church staff doesn't know where to put
people were arrested in Wichita dur-
them anymore. Wright says the prayer has
ing 46 days of confrontational
been reprinted in hundreds of church newslet-
anti-abortion protests by Operation
ters and other publications, read from pulpits in
Rescue, Wright supported the block-
every state of the nation and broadcast on more
radio shows than he can count.
ade- of clinics, but after the demon-
This was no innocuous ecumenical invoca-
strations ended he led a group of
tion.
clergy who sought to lower the pitch
This was a statement of absolutes:
of the public discourse. "We want to
see abortion stopped, but we don't
"Heavenly Father, we come before You to-
want to polarize the community,"
day to ask your forgiveness and seek your di-
Wright said then.
rection and guidance. We know your word says,
It turned out some months later,
'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that's ex-
however, that Wright's church had
actly what we've done. We have lost our spiri-
helped extend the Operation Rescue
tual equilibrium and inverted our values.
protest by acting as the radical
"We confess that we have ridiculed the abso-
group's banker and bookkeeper, pro-
lute truth of your word and called it moral plu-
cessing $70,000 in contributions to
ralism. We have worshiped other gods and
help organizers pay the costs of their
called it multiculturalism. We have endorsed
demonstrations.
perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle."
Wright believes strongly that min-
Even at that first reading in Topeka, legisla-
isters should not shy away from po-
See PRAYER, A12, Col. 4
litical involvement. Pastors should
"be involved in the political process
PRAYER, From A1
and speak out on the moral issues
that affect the community," he says.
tors were stirring, gasping, stalking
out of the chamber.
The prayer continues:
"We have neglected to discipline
"He didn't miss anyone," state
our children and called it building es-
Rep. Jim Long told the Kansas City
teem. We have abused power and
Star. "He made everyone mad."
Exactly right, the pastor says.
called it political savvy. We have
coveted our neighbors' possessions
"I'm a preacher at an evangelical
and called it ambition. We have pol-
church," says Wright. "What else
would they expect from me? I don't
luted the air with profanity and por-
know if they were just looking for
nography and called it freedom. of
platitudes or a 'To whom it may con-
expression."
cern' kind of prayer. But there are
On the first Sunday after the
absolutes, and God has called me to
hoopla in the Kansas legislature,
preach the truth. Naturally, any time
Wright stepped up to his pulpit and
you preach absolutes, you're going
found himself staring into a standing
to offend some people."
ovation. Attendance at the 3,000-
The prayer continues:
member Central Christian Church
THÉ WASHINGTON POST
MONDAY, MAY 20, 1996
"We have exploited the poor and
has jumped by 250 since Wright first
called it the lottery. We have ne-
read the prayer.
glected the needy and called it self-
And while the walkouts in Kansas
preservation. We have rewarded la-
and Colorado grabbed headlines, the
ziness and called it welfare."
pastor quickly points out that when
In Colorado last week, when state
the prayer was delivered in the Utah
Rep. Mark Paschall read Wright's
and Nebraska legislatures, no one
prayer to his colleagues, liberal
raised a stink.
Democrats called the text "racist"
"There's a great hunger now for
and "divisive,"- and some conserva-
absolutes," says Wright, 53, who has
tive Republicans joined the walkout.
been at the Wichita church for nine
Republican Rep. Marcy Morrison
called the prayer "offensive. We give
years. "The mainline denominations
a letter to all ministers reminding
are dying because they have accept-
them before they give prayers in the
ed the idea that everything is gray.
House chamber that this is an ecu-
The churches that are growing are
menical group," she said last week.
the ones that are taking a position,
"For Paschall to do this flies in the
that see the world in black-and-
face of tradition."
white."
In both Kansas and Colorado,
If the firestorm over the prayer
Wright's prayer has prompted
dies down, Wright and his congrega-
moves to halt the practice of opening
tion will move on to their next big
legislative sessions with a call to
topic-presidential politics. The pas-
higher powers.
tor says he doesn't tell his flock
which candidate to support, but he's
happy to reveal his own views.
CENTER ON BUDGET
AND POLICY PRIORITIES
Bel
File
May 24, 1996
THE NEW WELFARE BILL
By Sharon Parrott, David Super, and Susan Steinmetz
With some exceptions, the new welfare bill unveiled by the Congressional
Republican Leadership is strikingly similar to the vetoed welfare conference agreement.
Despite claims of moderation by its sponsors, the legislation would likely lead to a
sharp increase in poverty. The reductions in basic programs for low-income children,
families, and elderly and disabled people total $53 billion over seven years, an amount
identical to that saved by the vetoed welfare conference agreement. These savings are
higher than those included in the governors' welfare proposal and include $23 billion in
cuts to benefits for legal immigrants on which the governors did not reach agreement.
While the structural changes in the AFDC program are the most radical in the
bill, nearly all of the spending cuts come from other programs, including the
Supplemental Security Income program for the elderly and disabled poor and the food
stamp program. Low-income disabled children, working poor families, the elderly
poor, and poor legal immigrants would be among those the legislation affects with
some severity.
I.
Income Support, Work, And Child Care
The new Republican bill would permit states to withdraw, or divert to other uses, up
to $60 billion from income support and work programs. Like the vetoed welfare
conference agreement, states would receive their full block grant allocation if they
maintained just 75 percent of their 1994 spending level for cash assistance, work
programs, and child care. In addition, states would be permitted to divert up to 30
percent of their federal block grant dollars to other uses, including services funded
under the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). SSBG funds can be used to fund a broad
array of social services and typically account for only a modest portion of the total
social service spending in states. Thus, a state could transfer welfare block grant dollars
to the SSBG and use those funds to supplant state dollars currently spent on social
services. Services under the Social Services Block Grant are not necessarily directed at
families with children. Moreover, the income limits for services supported under Title
XX are typically well above the poverty line.
The new Republican bill has an insufficient contingency fund that leaves states and
poor families without real protection during recessions. While increasing the funding
for the contingency fund from $1 billion under the vetoed welfare bill to $2 billion, the
contingency fund remains inadequate. Between 1989 and 1992, the cost of the AFDC
777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 705, Washington, DC 20002 Tel: 202-408-1080 Fax: 202-408-1056
Robert Greenstein, Executive Director
program increased by $6 billion in three years - three times the amount available under the
contingency fund for five years. The House bipartisan bill (H.R. 3266, known as the
"Castle/Tanner" bill), by contrast, provides for open-ended funding during severe
national recessions and in cases in which particular states face deep economic
downturns.
In contrast to the vetoed welfare bill, the Governors' welfare proposal, and the House
and Senate bipartisan bills, the new Republican bill prohibits states from using
federal block grant dollars to provide noncash assistance, including vouchers, to
families that reach the time limit and cannot find a job. Under the vetoed welfare bill,
states would have the option of providing noncash aid such as housing vouchers to
families that hit the time limit. But states would not have this option under the new
Republican welfare bill. The Administration has called for mandatory vouchers to
provide a safety net for children when their families reach a state or federally imposed
time limit. In addition, the House and Senate bipartisan bills would require those states
that institute a time limit shorter than five years to provide vouchers for families
affected by the time limit and would provide states this option after the five-year time
limit.
Under the new Republican welfare bill, no poor child would have an assurance of
receiving basic income support even if his or her family met all of the state's
eligibility requirements and the parents were willing to participate in a work
program. While the new Republican bill includes a vague provision requiring that state
plans contain criteria for "fair and equitable" treatment for the delivery of benefits, this
language is drafted to be essentially unenforceable. The bill prohibits the Secretary of
HHS from taking any action if a state fails to set objective rules or fails to follow rules it
does set. In contrast, the Castle/Tanner bill would authorize the federal government to
ensure that states follow rules established by the state as well as federal law.
Many poor children and parents could lose Medicaid coverage under the new
Republican welfare bill. Under current law, families that receive AFDC are assured of
receiving Medicaid coverage. Like the vetoed bill, the new bill allows states to
terminate Medicaid coverage for women and children who no longer receive income
support, including those who reach the state's time limit but cannot find unsubsidized
employment. The new bill would also repeal the transitional Medicaid program that
assures families leaving welfare for work of a year of extended health coverage.
The new Republican bill includes additional child care funding as proposed in the
governors' welfare proposal, but at the same time the bill includes a new cut in the
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), a program that many states use for child care
funding. The cut in SSBG is twice as deep as in the vetoed welfare bill and totals 40
percent of the additional child care funding added to the bill.
2
II.
Food Assistance
The new Republican bill would make deeper cuts in food stamps than the vetoed
welfare bill. Over half of the reductions in the proposed bill come in the food stamp
program. The total food stamp reductions, including reductions in food stamp benefits
for legal immigrants, equal nearly $28.4 billion over six years. This is more than $9 bil-
lion, or 48 percent, above the level of cuts proposed in the President's welfare bill and
about $7 billion (34 percent) above the level in the House bipartisan welfare bill. It is
also almost $2 billion higher than the level saved by the governors' welfare bill when
the cuts to legal immigrants in the vetoed welfare bill are added to it.
When fully implemented, these reductions would cut food stamp benefits by 17 percent,
the equivalent of reducing the average food stamp benefit from its current level of 78
cents per person per meal to about 64 cents per person per meal. Less than two percent
of the savings would come from provisions to reduce fraud and abuse, impose tougher
penalties on recipients who violate program requirements, or cut administrative costs.
The new Republican bill rejects the one major change the governors recommended in
the vetoed welfare bill's provisions on calculating food stamp benefits. The vetoed
welfare bill would repeal a provision of current law scheduled to take effect shortly
under which families with children that pay more than half of their income for housing
will receive a larger food stamp allotment in recognition of the fact that they have little
money left to purchase food after paying rent and utilities. The governors, the Senate
welfare bill, the House bipartisan bill, and the Chafee-Breaux proposal would retain this
provision of law, but the new welfare bill does not.
The new Republican welfare bill would deny food stamps to 700,000 unemployed
adults who are willing to work but unable to find jobs. Unless they were disabled or
caring for a minor child, individuals between the ages of 18 and 50 would be cut off the
program after only four months if they were unemployed and not enrolled in a work or
training program, regardless of whether a work or training slot was available. CBO
estimates the work and training slots that the bill funds would be sufficient to cover
only a small fraction of these individuals and that 700,000 people a month who are
willing to work but cannot find jobs or workfare slots would be denied food stamp
benefits as a result. This proposal contrasts sharply with that in the bipartisan welfare
bill recently introduced in the House. Under that bill, food stamp recipients between 18
and 50 would be required to work after six months of receiving benefits. But recipients
who were willing to work but unable to find jobs in the private sector would be given
the opportunity to work off their food stamps. The House bipartisan bill, unlike this
proposal, would not deny food stamps to anyone willing to work.
The new Republican welfare bill would allow states to convert the food stamp
program to a block grant. Under this optional block grant, food stamp funding would
be frozen at the state's 1994 food stamp expenditure level (or the 1992-1994 average
level if that is higher). No funding increment would be provided during recessions, if a
3
state's population increased, or if the number of poor people in a state climbed for other
reasons. Nor would any adjustment be provided as food prices rose from one year to
the next. Block grant funding consequently would fall steadily further behind need,
with poor households having to get by with less food each year. The funding crunches
would be most acute during recessions, when poverty and unemployment climb.
When the economy soured and more people applied for aid, block-grant states would
generally have to choose between cutting benefit levels, instituting waiting lists, or
making various categories of the poor ineligible for aid when times were hardest. There
would be no federal standards under the block grant. There would be no assurance that
a family poor enough to meet a state's eligibility rules would receive benefits; a state
could run low on block grant funds and turn eligible families away. Neither the House
bipartisan bill nor the Chafee-Breaux proposal contain the food stamp block grant
provision.
III.
Supplemental Security Income for the Elderly
The new Republican welfare bill would ultimately raise from 65 to 67 the age at
which poor elderly people can qualify for SSI. This provision, which was omitted
from the bipartisan welfare bill recently introduced in the House, would eliminate the
core of the safety net for impoverished elderly individuals age 65 and 66 who cannot
find employment. Most of those affected would be poor elderly women; three of four
SSI recipients aged 65 to 69 are female.
IV.
Denying Assistance to Legal Immigrants
The new Republican welfare bill would treat poor legal immigrants even more
harshly than the vetoed welfare bill. Although many governors agreed that the
vetoed welfare bill went too far in denying benefits to legal immigrants, the NGA was
unable to reach agreement on how to moderate its approach. (Illegal immigrants
already are ineligible for most major federal benefit programs.) Not only does the new
bill fail to moderate the vetoed welfare bill's restrictions on legal immigrants, it actually
increases the severity of the cuts. The vetoed welfare bill would have saved $22 billion
over six years by denying subsistence benefits to the large majority of poor immigrants;
the new bill would cut benefits to these immigrants by $23 billion. Only one percent of
these savings would come from denying benefits to illegal immigrants.
Low-income legal immigrants would be denied aid provided under major programs
such as SSI, Medicaid, and food stamps, as well as assistance provided under smaller
programs such as meals-on-wheels to the homebound elderly and prenatal care for
pregnant women. Half a million elderly and disabled beneficiaries who are legal
immigrants would be denied SSI. These restrictions would affect many legal
immigrants with no other sources of support. Under the conference agreement, most
indigent elderly and disabled immigrants who are here legally but have no sponsor
would be denied both food stamps and SSI. So would poor elderly and disabled
immigrants whose sponsor has died or become impoverished.
4
File
Welfare Reform
USA TODAY
MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1996
Civil rights a part of
Presidential debate
real welfare reform
sham has to end
WASHINGTON - Republicans got the proverbial "bounce"
This is just the kind of news opponents of the new welfare-
out of last week's convention. Democrats expect the same next
reform law feared. Over the past 20 years, the federal govern-
week. Now leadership of the free world could hinge on Bob
ment has done little to ensure federally assisted programs
Dole's performance in the upcoming debates.
don't discriminate, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says in
But today's presidential debates are embarrassing, unwor-
a report it will release later this week.
thy of the battles waged by the likes of Lincoln and Douglas.
The report, which covers five administrations - three Re-
The 1960s format is a glorified press conference - reporters
publicans and two Democrats - is a scathing indictment of the
ask obvious questions; candidates spew rehearsed replies.
federal government's failure to ensure civil rights laws aren't
These sessions betray voters who want to figure out what's
violated in programs that receive federal money.
going on. Anybody who's watched a press conference knows a
Expect a chorus of "I told you so's" among those who've long
modestly talented office-seeker can out-
feared the new block-grant program that replaces Aid to Fam-
wit a reporter, especially if journalists
ilies With Dependent Children will
can't force truth out with follow-up ques-
make life harder - not better - for
tions, subpoena threats or thumbscrews.
many of the nation's neediest people.
It takes a very special kind of inelo-
The commission concludes there's
quence to fail in such contests: Gerald
been "an almost complete cessation" of
Ford by declaring occupied Poland a
efforts to enforce Title VI, the section of
free land and Michael Dukakis by talk-
the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits
ing about public education when asked
discrimination based on race, color or
what he would do if somebody raped
national origin in programs that get fed-
and murdered his wife. Nobody will for-
eral assistance.
get George Bush's longing look at a
Left unchecked, the problems cited
Counterpoints
wristwatch during one 1992 colloquy.
by the commission are likely to get
By DeWayne Wickham
By Tony Snow
Voters this year deserve something
worse under the new welfare-reform
lovelier than a pageant of poses.
law that allows states to fashion their own policies.
Consider à modest proposal: Revive a modified version of
I've long supported the need to reform welfare. Federal aid
the Lincoln-Douglas debates, not just for the presidential candi-
to the poor should be a helping hand, not a way of life. But
dates but for everyone seeking election to federal office. Hold
those who are charged with devising the new programs that
a series of discussions about specific issues - one on taxes,
will replace AFDC must be watched closely.
one on social policy, one on foreign policy and one on some
This shift from a federal to a state-run welfare program is
other matter of urgent concern.
risky business. Historically, states have not done a good job of
Then, fire all the journalists and moderators and organize
protecting the rights of minorities. Far too many were once
combat in the following manner. Give each candidate a 10-
accomplices in efforts to prevent blacks and others from gain-
minute opening speech, followed by a five-minute cross-exami-
ing equal access to opportunities. And now some states that
nation by his opponent. Next, five-minute rebuttals separated
have fallen under the control of right-wing zealots can be ex-
by short cross-examinations - say, three minutes. Close with
pected to test the limits of the law. Title VI is among the few
five-minute summaries and get out in less than an hour.
protections against conservative government run amok.
This approach offers several advantages. It limits the me-
But not if it goes unenforced.
chanical recitations to 10 minutes per person. It tests candi-
In recent years, spending on Title VI enforcement has de-
dates' knowledge and resourcefulness by forcing them to fire
clined, the commission says, leaving federal watchdogs with
off at least two extemporaneous speeches. It creates the possi-
little real means of doing their job. That fact is just one more
bility of high drama during cross-examination. And it accepts
cause for concern among those who've argued this welfare re-
reality, which is that Democrats and Republicans still domi-
form is mean-spirited and gives states too much leeway.
nate the action despite Ross Perot's high national profile.
President Clinton should act to fix this problem before he
Americans have a long, proud history of public debate. With
arrives in Chicago next week. A commitment to increased
all the complaints about sound bites and schlocky convention
funding for Title VI enforcement would be a good first step. If
coverage, why not make the big boys jump on the high wire
Clinton wants strong civil rights enforcement of federally fund-
alone, where one-liners can't save them? Put together a real
ed programs - like the new welfare-reform law that will have
debate and, for once, make them sweat - and think.
a disproportionate impact on minorities - he must also order
his Justice Department to do a better job of enforcing Title VI.
COUNTERPOINTS' four columnists provide views from diverse per-
Anything less sends the wrong message at the worse possible
spectives on today's issues. Tuesday: Michael Gartner on capital gains
time.
games; Wednesdays: Linda Chavez; Thursdays: Susan Estrich; Mon-
days: Tony Snow.
USA TODAY
MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1996
LETTERS
Arrogant Earthlings
Let Dole, Kemp be 'real' Republicans
Your report that Europa,
the of the moons of Jupiter,
On Nov. 5 I will cast my
might be warm enough and
ballot for Bob Dole and Jack
wet enough to support life" is
Kemp, my first vote for a Re-
certainly consistent with other
publican presidential ticket
scientific reports on the possi-
since 1976. Why? I don't trust
bility of life on other planets
the present occupant of the
with similar atmospheres and
White House. He's too slick
temperatures ("Jupiter moon
for me! I'll also be coming
may support life,' News,
home to the Republican Par-
Wednesday).
ty, the party of my family
However, this raises scientif-
roots in Virginia. In my mid-
ic if not moral questions.
dle age I feel a need to recon-
It seems that we, as human
nect with the GOP's fiscal
life on the planet Earth, are too
conservatism.
egocentric. Who are we to
But lest anyone misunder-
think we are the life center of
stand my vote, it will not be a
the entire universe?
vote for Newt Gingrich, Pat
In only a few hundred years
Buchanan, Pat Robertson,
of truly scientific study, we
Rush Limbaugh, Jesse
By Joe Mahoney, AP
have come to the ludicrous
Helms or Ollie North and
Campaigning: GOP candidates Dole and Kemp in Denver.
conclusion that life can exist
their ilk.
only in environments that are
As a young person in Vir-
Bob and Jack, be Republi-
Dole did Wednesday night
roughly similar to our own, and
ginia, I learned that the Re-
cans - real Republicans!
("Elizabeth Dole takes the
only if there are organic com-
publican Party was the only
David Bower
floor," News, Thursday).
pounds present that we on
thing standing between the
Beverly, W.Va.
She showed a lot of cour-
Earth have deemed absolutely
people of my state and the ul-
age to walk into the middle
necessary for life.
traconservative, good ol' boy
No. Ireland policy
of the convention floor to talk
If we can only ponder be-
network called the "Byrd
about her husband.
yond our own narcissism, we
machine." The Gingrich
Former secretary of State
This presentation shows
may realize it is quite possible
crowd in Virginia today pret-
Jim Baker's GOP convention
what a wonderful first lady
to have significant life forms -
ty much looks and sounds
speech bodes ill for peace in
Elizabeth Dole would be. I'm
even far more advanced than
like the Democratic "Byrd
Northern Ireland. A return to
not a member of either par-
we that not only survive, but
machine" in Republican
the Reagan/Thatcher/Bush
ty, but because of her awe-
thrive, in what only we call ex-
clothes. Pat Robertson's so-
era of "Brit Firstism" will be
some presentation, I will
treme temperatures and with
called Christian Coalition
a disaster.
proudly vote for Dole.
only the presence of organic
doesn't represent many con-
Baker has shown himself
Joe Morris
compounds not yet discovered
servative Christians like me,
to be an Anglophile with his
Memphis, Tenn.
by our scientists.
who seek to practice our
statement that President
Bryan J. Gros, Ph.D.
faith and politics with grace,
Clinton, by inviting Sinn Fein
Presidential golf
)
State of Louisiana
compassion and dignity.
leader Gerry Adams to the
Dept. of Health & Hospitals
My vote will not be a vote
White House, made the rela-
Your story about Presi-
Baton Rouge, La.
for them. It will be a vote for
tionship with "our closest
dent Clinton's Wyoming va-
a man whose pragmatism
ally" the worst since the Bos-
cation during the GOP con-
Proud to serve country
and political skills have
ton Tea Party. The poor fool
vention may have contained
served him well in the U.S.
seems to have forgotten the
some Republican spawned-
This is in response to reader
Senate, a vote cast in hope
Brits burned the White
disinformation ("Clinton:
Margaret Irvine's letter ("No
that Bob Dole's basic sense of
House during the 1812 war
What GOP convention?"
shame in avoiding Vietnam,"
honor will not cave in to the
and supported the Confeder-
News, Thursday).
Tuesday).
self-righteous and noncom-
acy in our Civil War.
While vacationing in Jack-
I have admired Muhammad
passionate demands of Ging-
Rather than our closèst
son, Wyo., Tuesday I played
Ali for 33 years, both in the ring
rich and company. It will be
ally, Britain should be called
golf in a group two holes be-
and out. He publicly asked for
a vote for Jack Kemp's abili-
our oldest enemy.
hind the president. Not only
a military deferment from the
ty to be compassionate to-
Joe Joyce
did Clinton graciously spend
draft and went to court to ob-
ward people in need even as
Hanover, Va.
a minute chatting with me on
tain it. He was upfront, wheth-
he stands against policies
the driving range before he
er I agree or not with his rea-
and practices he considers
Mrs. Dole's courage
teed off, my group played
sons. He suffered ridicule and
destructive to America and
our round in 41/2 hours, not
financial loss.
Americans, a vote for some-
Of the many speeches that
the "six to seven" snarling
The people Irvine refers to
one whose conservatism is
I've seen at political conven-
hours you reported.
were not "smart." They were
more a force for building up
tions, I have not seen any-
John P. Newman
cowards. They were not
than tearing down.
thing like what Elizabeth
Los Angeles, Calif.
"lucky." They were cheaters.
She writes there was no shame
in this. That is understandable
pid" and "unlucky" boys died
country, I went home and took
To comment
because anyone who dodged
in place of her heroes.
up my civilian life with the
If you would like to comment on
the draft had no shame.
Now, to answer her question
pride of fulfilling my patriotic
editorials, columns or other topics in
Irvine's "boyfriends and
about complaints concerning
duty.
USA TODAY, or on any subjects im-
brothers" who successfully
our commander in chief. It is
I am certain that pride, pa-
portant to you: Send e-mail for letters
dodged the draft were re-
cowardly draft evasion. I am a
triotism and duty. are also
to the editor only to editor@usato-
placed by someone else. When
48-year-old man who, when
words whose meaning Irvine
day.com. Fax 1-703-247-3108. Mail
Letters to the Editor to 1000 Wilson
the Selective Service called up
drafted (though married),
will never understand. I found
Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22229. Please
American citizens to be draft-
served in the infantry and later
her efforts to justify her and
include address and day and night
ed, it sent draft notices every
as a tank commander sergeant
her family's lack of honor dis-
phone numbers so letters may be
month until it reached the
from September 1967 to Sep-
gusting.
verified. Letters and articles submit-
number of men needed. I won-
tember 1969. At the conclusion
Horace E. Hembree III
ted to USA TODAY may be pub-
lished or distributed in print, electron-
der how many of those "stu-
of my military service to my
Temple, Ga.
ic or other forms.
Welfare
THE WASHINGTON Post
File
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1996
David S. Broder
Even knowing that Republican
votes would send the bill to Clinton's
George F. Will
desk and that he had decided to sign
A Party
it, exactly half the Democrats in the
House and 21 of the 46 voting on it in
Bob Dole:
the Senate voted no, because they
could not stomach what the president
When Reagan proposed his
Split
swallowed.
Almost all the members of the Con-
Man of
ductions, the nation was reelin
years of oil shocks and stagfi
gressional Black Caucus, represent-
The "misery index"-the sum of
The focus on the Republican battle
ing the Democrats' most loyal constit-
over the abortion plank in the 1996
platform has obscured the fact that
advocates of women's issues and
Distinction
unemployment and inflation rate
uency, voted no. So did prominent
,had recently topped 20. Hence
President Clinton's decision to sign
those with Latino constituencies.
potency of the question he posed
the Republican welfare reform bill has
House Minority Leader Dick Gep-
the country in his debate with Pre
SAN DIEGO-Dispirited Republi-
hardt (Mo.) and Sen. Bob Kerrey
dent Carter: Are you better f-toda
set the stage for what is likely to be
cans, their fates linked with Bob
an even more divisive struggle inside
(Neb.), both of whom have sought the
than you were four years ago?
Dole's, have of late experienced-life
the Democratic Party during the next
presidential nomination already and
as all Lent and no Easter. Resurred
Today no one bothers to compute,
four years.
may well challenge again, voted no.
the misery index. The San Diegoi
So did Senate Minority Leader Tom
tion, they hope, began Monday with
If the plan works as its designers
Union-Tribune reports a poll of the;
hope in moving people from welfare
Daschle (S.D.); the general chairman
Dole's deployment of his economic
Republican delegates who are about
to work, Clinton will be hailed along
of the Democratic Party, Sen. Chris-
plan, built around a 15 percenti
to convene here-a cross section: of
with such Republican sponsors as
topher Dodd (Conn.); Sen. Ted Ken-
across-the-board tax cut, which her
the country's hard-core anti-Clinton-
Pete Domenici (N.M.), and Reps.
nedy (Mass.); and both the Democrat-
hopes will, at last, draw a sharp diss
ites-showing that 64 percent say
Clay Shaw (Fla.) and Mike Castle
ic senators from California, Dianne
tinction between himself and his rivale
they are as well off or better off than
(Del.). These are decent people who
Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.
Will flaming hope replace dull dela
they were four years ago. And the
have no wish to inflict hardship on
That Clinton went one way and all
spair in Republican ranks? Time will!
Los Angeles Times reports that the
welfare mothers or their children, let
of them the other will be remembered
tell, but recent events already have
economy of this state, where one-
in the year 2000, when someone-
told Republicans that trying to draw!
eighth of the electorate lives, is
maybe Gephardt, maybe Kerrey,
sharp distinctions between conservati
colating briskly enough to have gen-
maybe Dodd or Daschle-challenges
On welfare, exactly
tism and Clintonism these days is like
erated $2.6 billion in unanticipated
Vice President AI Gore, who will have
Clinton's backing (assuming they're
sup
revenues. The revenues result partly
half of congressional
from hefty bonuses paid to executives
both still in office), for the presiden-
tial nomination.
of profitable corporations. Also,
Democrats could not
But that is just the beginning of it.
The born-again
wages are rising faster than inflation;
Democratic governors, unlike their
supply-sider takes
to
partly because of rapid job-creation in
stomach what the
Republican counterparts, are mainly
high-wage fields like computers and
very skeptical of taking on the wel-
entertainment.
president
fare problem under the terms of the
on the big spenders
Because the economy is not obvi-
bill President Clinton will sign. They
ously broken, Dole must make an
swallowed.
think it is underfunded and offers too
trying to carve fog with a trowel
argument that Reagan did not
little in the way of protection for their
Clinton, too, favors a tax cut, but one
concerning what new tax cuts are
alone exploit the ill-disguised racism
budgets when, as is likely, the econo-
smaller and more targeted. This rej
supposed to fix. The argument is that
that lurks behind much of the welfare
my again runs out of gas and another
flects the reversal of roles in contem-
the task of funding the existing wel-
e demagoguery. Appalled as virtu-
recession develops.
porary American politics.
fare state requires a bold dash for a
ally all Americans are by the human
Democratic mayors and county offi-
cials are even more vehemently op-
During the liberal era, from the
higher rate of economic growth. De-
and financial cost of welfare depen-
New Deal to the Great Society, the
mography is destiny for a welfare
denoy, they are looking for that elu-
posed. They object particularly to the
sive fix.
provision ending welfare benefits for
Republican Party's doctrine often
state, and the great demographic fact
legal aliens, who live by the hundreds
seemed to be an unenthusiastic echo
of our time is the aging of the popula-
But the step they have taken in?
of the Democratic Party's. Republi-
tion, with the elderly being the princi-
ending the 60-year-old federal guar-
of thousands in their jurisdictions and
cans were for approximately what
pal recipients of welfare state trans-
antee of minimal financial support for
whose needs now will have to be met
from strained local budgets.
Democrats were for, only less of its
fer payments for pensions
needy parents and children is fraught
and slower. Echo politics worked web
medical care,
with peril. There is enormous uncer-
Add in the fact that most of the
tainty whether state-run programs,
major interest groups with influence
enough for Eisenhower and Nixon
In asserting the "supply side" faith
partially funded by limited federal
in the Democratic Party-the unions,
this conservative era, it may work as
that the tax measures he pro
block grants, in fact will induce people
civil rights groups, children's advo-
well for Clinton.
will be sufficiently stimulative to. be
to leave welfare and find jobs or
cates and feminist organizations-
For months the Dole campaign has
partially self-financing, Dole is com-
whether they will collapse when the
also condemned Clinton's decision to
resembled the description of a com-
mitting the unspeakable faux pas of
first downturn in the economy swells
sign the bill, and the political stakes
mittee as an alley down which ideas
partially changing his mind. It was
the unemployment rolls.
are obvious. More than anything he
said that when Czar Nicholas II ut-
has done until now, Clinton's welfare
are led and then strangled. However,
The best evidence from the evalua-
tions of experimental welfare-to-work
decision puts his party's future at
last summer, addressing a Republican,
tered the word "intelligentsia" he did
risk. If Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cuts
audience, Dole, with an almost
80 with the same facial expression he
programs-as Sen. Daniel Patrick
charming guilelessness, blurted out
wore when uttering the word "syphi-
Moynihan (D-N.Y.), a lifelong student
were "a riverboat gamble," as Howard
Baker said, then this is like betting
the thought that if they wanted him to
lis." A dozen years ago Dole seemed
of poverty problems, repeatedly has
be Reagan, he would be. Now this
to feel that way about the most brass-
the ranch.
pointed out-is that they reduce the
summer he is trying to capture some
ily optimistic "supply-siders."
numbers needing assistance only mar-
of Reagan's lightning in a bottle-by
However, just as hunger is the best
ginally and only if more money is
means of a Reaganesque tax proposale
sauce for unappetizing food, political:
invested in job-training, counseling,
designed to give the Republican Party
peril is the best argument for Dole to
child care and transportation subsi-
the ideological clarity the Bush presi-
swallow his skepticism and embrace
dies at the start.
dency blurred.
the argument President Kennedy cor-
The bill the Republicans wrote and
It is axiomatic that just as birds area
rectly made for his tax cut: "It is a
Clinton agreed to sign calls for less
federal spending and demands great-
called by sounds like their own, votersh
paradoxical truth that tax rates are
are summoned by thoughts like their)
too high today and tax revenues are
er results-something that is possible
too low and the soundest way to raise
in the real world only if states and
own, and today they think the governor
ment gets more of their money thana
the revenues in the long run is to cut
localities vastly increase the human
the rates now."
and dollar resources they commit to
is good for it or them. However, they
the effort. And that is both a fiscal and
also are afflicted by cognitive dissow
a political improbability.
nance-holding contradictory views,
Whether the effort succeeds or
with equal intensity. They want tax
fails, Clinton will go down in history
reduction and a balanced budget and
as the man who made a historic break
most of the current menu of govern-
with the tradition and the core of his
ment benefits.
Democratic Party. Already, it is clear
that he has driven a wedge down the
center of the party and caused a split
that is likely to echo in the primaries
of the year 2000-and beyond.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
'No Harm to Dolphins' (Cont'd)
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) [let-
Colman McCarthy's July 23 column
dous progress made. The bill also
ters, July 29] asserts that advocates
'Dolphin-Safe' Claim Is in Danger"
expands the definition of "dolphin
of S. 1420 and H.R. 2823 fail to men-
was an injustice to truth and U.S. tuna
safe" to include fish produced by
tion certain key aspects of dolphin
fishermen.
these tuna fishermen when absolutely
WEDNES
protection. Unfortunately, it is Rep.
Marine mammals are present in
no dolphins are killed during their
Miller who ignores issues of marine
every ocean and therefore virtually in
fishing operations as verified by on-
safety by endorsing a bill that does
every fishery. To put the eastern
board observers. "Dolphin safe" would
more harm than good.
Pacific yellowfin tuna fishery in per-
thus become a well-earned "gold star"
The current definition of "dolphin-
spective, the present U.S. Marine
for perfect performance.
safe" has been the downfall of the
Mammal Protection Act would con-
We need to support the efforts of
ocean environment. Mr. Miller's bill
sider a take of approximately 55,000
responsible fishermen, not blacklist
would maintain this definition, which
dolphins annually to be biologically
their products.
withholds the "safety" label from any
insignificant for the eastern Pacific
TERESA PLATT
dolphin populations. This is because
Co-director
tuna caught by encircling the schools
The Fishermen's Coalition
of dolphins that are found commonly
of the huge size of this fishery (8
Coronado, Calif.
near schools of large yellowfin tuna.
million square' miles, almost three
times the size of the United States)
Mr. Miller does not merely want to
halt unnecessary mortality of dolphins
and the abundance of dolphins (9.7
Breath of Fresh Air
but also to cease "harm" to dolphins.
million).
The international fishermen of the
There it was. I couldn't believe my
Unfortunately, while the dolphin
eyes: "Gas Company Accepts Blame
eastern Pacific, however, committed
protectors are aiming to stop certain
for Explosion; Errors in Installing
to a higher standard of dolphin pro-
types of emotional trauma among dol-
'Line Led to Alexandria Town House
tection by participating in a multifac-
phins, the rest of marine animals are
Blast." Yes, an admission of fault! No
eted program, including 100 percent
suffering. Tuna fishermen have to
wishy-washy, vacillation. A straight-
observer coverage and quotas for dol-
rely on other fishing techniques that
forward acceptance of blame.
phins killed that are reduced each
do not encircle dolphins in order to
No reference to a bad childhood with
year to fewer than 5,000 animals by
obtain a "dolphin-safe" label. "Dolphin-
divorced parents, no domestic abuse,
1999. They reached and surpassed
safe" fishing involves setting nets
no nightmares arising from drug use,
that target three years ago. The num-
no abandonment by society, no accusa-
near logs or small schools of fish.
ber in 1995 was 3,300 animals out of
tion of faulty work by another party,
These areas do not contain schools of
9.7 million dolphins. The "dolphin-
just a simple: It was our fault.
dolphins, but they are populated by
safe" policy of U.S. canners had noth-
How refreshing in this day and age
many other types of marine animals,
ing to do with this achievement, be-
to find an honest, no-nonsense, no
from juvenile fish to sea turtles.
cause none of this tuna was consid-
excuses, no others-to-blame willing-
The overzealous protection of dol-
ered "dolphin safe" under current law.
ness to say: "Yes, I did it. It was my
phins is destroying these other forms
Greenpeace, Center for Marine
fault, and I'm going to try hard not to
of less popular marine life, which are
Conservation, World Wildlife and
let it happen again." Congratulations
killed unavoidably by fishing nets and
many other groups are supporting
to the gas company for its ethical and
disruptions in the ocean environment
Sen. John Breaux's bill because it
courageous statement.
in order to harvest "dolphin-safe" tu-
would remove U.S. embargoes from
DONALD Y. McCOY
na. Mr. Miller's bill singles out the
this fishery in the light of the tremen-
Great Falls
dolphin as morally more worthy of our
protection than the animals that his
legislation would kill.
How Unwanted Pregnancies Begin
Those who wish to help the envi-
Though I am pro-choice, I enthusi-
ronment should join the ranks of
the area of why the ill-fated pregnan-
astically applaud my pro-life friend
Greenpeace and the World Wildlife
cies began. Beyond ending sexual
Frederica Mathewes-Green for
Fund in opposing Mr. Miller's bill and
abuse as a cause of unwanted preg-
"Seeking Abortion's Middle Ground"
nancy and the wider availability of
supporting S. 1420 and H.R.2823.
[Outlook, July 28]. She correctly has
condoms, Ms. Mathewes-Green's
This law would provide safety not
seen beyond the rancor of the present
only other recommendation is a
only for dolphins but for less charis-
debate to realize that all concerned
sweeping generality: "righting the
matic marine life that are crucial to a
want an end to demand for abortion. I
balance of power in male-female sex-
stable oceanic environment. Mr. Mill-
simply maintain, contrary to Ms. Ma-
ual relationships."
er ignores this in the attempt to
thewes-Green, that abortion should
We need much, much more discus-
protect every single dolphin from
remain legal until that day comes.
sion of why American women and men
emotional stress. A law that would
I also agree emphatically with Ms.
are behaving so irresponsibly together
help the entire marine ecosystem def-
Mathewes-Green that we must stop
4,100 times a day to produce that
initely is a better idea.
pressuring women in a jam to abort
number of abortions. If, as Ms. Ma-
MATTHEW PARROTT
their unwanted fetuses, even if the
thewes-Green says, "the abortion de-
Washington
pressure results only from our with-
bate is essentially an argument among
The writer is a research fellow at the
holding emotional support from them.
women," then its scope ought to be
Capital Research Center, a nonprofit
Where I find too little emphasis in
widened to include the men who, after
research organization.
Ms. Mathewes-Green's words is in
all, are responsible for at least 50
percent of the irresponsibility. I hope
the men then would prove themselves
responsible enough to take part.
For a 'Zero-Tolerance' Drug Policy
ERIC P. STEWART
Catonsville
I have been reading with much
order to combat it effectively. The
interest the war of words between
penalties for the use and distribution
County Executive Douglas Duncan
of illegal drugs must be swift and
and State's Attorney Andrew Sonner
consistent. The time to stop a drug
about Montgomery County's drug-
user is when he begins to use drugs
enforcement policy. In the July 20
or, preferably, before drug use be-
The Washington Post
Metro section, The Post reported
comes a habit. Drug use by our chil-
EUGENE MEYER. 1875-1959
that the two had declared "a truce" in
dren must be stopped before it starts
PHILIP L. GRAHAM, 1915-1963
this war.
through educational efforts in our
DONALDE GRAHAM
From 1988 until 1992, I worked as
schools and community-oriented activ-
Publisher
an assistant- state's attorney on the
ities after school and in the summer.
LEONARD DOWNIE
MEG GREENFIELD
Executive Editor
Editorial Page Editor
felony drug-prosecution teams in Mr.
The low-, middle- and upper-level
ROBERT G. KAISER
STEPHEN 8. ROSENFELD
Sonner's office. From 1988 through
drug dealers must be targeted by all
Managing Editor
Deputy Edt1 Page Editor
1991, the state's attorney's office took
the law enforcement tools available at
MILTON COLEMAN
Deputy Managing Editor
a zero-tolerance approach (i.e., prose-
e federal, state and county levels.
cute all drug arrests) to drug crimes at
As a resident of Montgomery County,
BOISFEUILLET JONES JR.
President and General Manager
all levels. But late in 1991, the office
I want to know that the police and the
VICE PRESIDENTS
declared victory in the "drug war" and
criminal justice system are doing all
BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE
At Large
informally began to implement a policy
MICHAELCLURMAN
Production
they can to stop drug dealing and the
FJ HAVLICEK
Industrial Rela. /Environment
that substantially weakened the previ-
violence associated with it in all the
STEPHEN HILLS
Advertising
ELIZABETH J. LOKER
Bystems and Engineering
ous zero-tolerance approach.
neighborhoods in our county. The
THEODORE LUTZ
Business Manager
Mr. Sonner's policy since 1991 has
state's attorney's office had it right in
CAROL D. MELAMED
Government Affairs
VINCENT E. REED
Communications
been less than one of zero tolerance.
1988 through 1991, when zero toler-
MARGARET SCOTT SCHIFF Controller/Pers/Admin
Specifically, this policy encompasses
WILLIAM TOMPKINS
Marketing
ance for drug use and distribution was
MARY ANN WERNER
Counsel
prosecuting only certain levels of vio-
both its policy and its practice. Our
lent drug crimes and large multi-kilo
jail is not overcrowded today, and all
Published by The Washington Post Company
drug dealers.
KATHARINE GRAHAM
of our elected officials should support
Chairman of the Executive Committee
Mr. Sonner's stated policy is wrong
a message of zero tolerance for drug
DONALD E. GRAHAM
for the following reasons. Drug crime
users and dealers.
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
ALAN SPOON
must be attacked at all levels, from
DREW GRIGG
President and Chief Operating Officer
the
to the multi-kilo dealer, in
Bethesda
1150
15th
BL
NW
Washington,
DC
834-6000
5.4 HAVEN
w/ mack
ckwl Bome/ pael
PLURIBUS
UIUM
KIMBALL LADIEN, M.D.
353 N. Illinois:
Kankakee, IL 60901
815/932-5378
David Gergen
Council to the President
West Wing, 1st Floor
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
February 16, 1994
Dear Mr. Gergen,
As a psychiatrist with a strong focus on prevention-oriented
community-based programs, I have long been developing my enclosed
Safe Haven programs aimed at breaking the cycles of gangs, drugs,
abuse and welfare while actually saving tax dollars in the
process. Much as with the original CCC and WPA, a Community
Service Corps (CSC) would help to ensure that we offered people
JOBS NOT SUBSIDIES and that everyone was literally "part of the
solution" in deeds as well as words. CSC programs would range
from resident patrols, day care and teacher's aides to after-
school programs, Big Brothers and Big Sisters to meals-on-wheels,
home health care aides and community clean-up/recycling crews to
name but a few. You hardly need to be a psychiatrist to
understand that rebuilding a strong sense of families and
communities would be a fundamental first step to building true
Safe Havens throughout our country. Thus, rather than simply
"breaking the cycles" after two years or more, Safe Haven would
help ensure that such cycles never even begin in the first place.
It is to move these programs from talk to action that I write to
you now.
As a Republican in a Democratic administration, I feel that
you are in an excellent position to advocate for win-win
resolutions to our long-standing social problems that go beyond
rhetoric and focus on bottom-line results. A motto of Safe Haven
is that A PENNY OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A DOLLAR OF CURE. If we
could reduce gangs, drugs and teen pregnancy in Illinois by even
10%, we would be saving over $400M annually (Table 1). By
reinvesting at least some of these savings into significantly
expanding prevention-oriented, community-based programs such as
high-quality, affordable day care and after-school programs, we
could achieve a multiplier effect with even greater savings (both
financial and human) in future years. Thus, far from costing
additional tax dollars, Safe Haven programs by integrating
fundamental reforms in health, education, job training, criminal
justice and welfare could save billions of dollars on the
National level while getting the job done and getting it done
right (Table 2). Here is where you and Hillary's help could be of
particular benefit.
1
I often say that just as Penicillin isn't a Republican or
Democratic "issue," so too Safe Haven is just a matter of good
medicine and, above all else, GOOD GOVERNMENT. As noted in my
enclosed letter to David Ellwood, Illinois' first step towards a
CSC-type system, Earnfare-I, passed in our House on a vote of
114-0! Thus, finding "middle ground" solutions that get the job
done can be of benefit to all. I would urge your support for the
implementing of Safe Haven demonstrations and for working with me
to adopt Earnfare-II/Safe Haven-type legislation on the National
level as well. By all of us working together, there is much good
that can be done. The Country we save may be our own.
Best wishes,
ClaLmo
Kimball Ladien, MD
CC: Hillary Clinton
klsh395.294
2
5 HAVEN
PLURIBUS
UNIVER
KIMBALL LADIEN, M.D.
353 N. Illinois:
Kankakee, IL 60901
815/932-5378
Earnfare-II/Safe Haven
Summary of proposed bill
1. Community Service Corps
Consistent with the Family Support Act of 1988 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992, all but the most
medically handicapped of adult Public Aid (GA and AFDC) and
SSI (eg, drug addicts) recipients under 65 would participate
in some form of appropriate Community Service (resident
patrols, day-care and after-school programs, teacher's aides,
community clean-up crews, recycling programs, meals-on-wheels,
church and CBO volunteers, etc) or other work program in the
Public and/or Private sector. As such we would offer JOBS NOT
SUBSIDIES and eliminate "welfare as we know it" while
strengthening our communities and saving money in the process.
2. Safe Haven-Parental Child Support Responsibility Act (PCSRA)
PCSRA would require all parents not presently paying any or
sufficient child support to participate in a certain number of
hours of CSC activities per week. Getting the message out,
particularly to the young and least responsible elements of
society (eg, gang members and school dropouts), that having a
child will obligate them to a long-term (minimum 18 years)
financial and time commitment could have a major impact on the
rate of especially teen pregnancies. Obligating fathers as
well as mothers to such long-term commitments would also
appeal to most voters and have broad bipartisan support.
3. Prevention-Oriented County/Community Incentive Plans (POCCIPs)
POCCIPS would allow each County and/or Community around
Illinois to get a block grant for the amount of social service
money presently spent within their local area. By allowing
communities to keep at least a substantial percentage of the
money that they save by implementing multi-agency, prevention-
oriented programs within their particular legislative
district, each County would now have a direct incentive to
implement such reforms. Counties could thus reduce local taxes
and enhance governmental accountability while improving both
services and the quality of life within their own communities.
klsh345.n93
Advantages of Safe Haven over present welfare reform proposals
1. Immediate Community Service Corps (CSC) work requirement
instead of waiting two years (ie, JOBS NOT SUBSIDIES).
2. Involves both parents from the begining in providing support.
(PCSRA fights teen pregnancy by providing strong disincentives
for "unplanned" teen pregnancies for fathers as well as mothers).
3. Provides for high-quality, affordable day care and after-
school programs for all children. CSC participants providing some
of the care learn both parenting and job skills as well as
defraying some of the overall program costs.
4. CSC Community Policing/Resident Patrols programs help
immediately to produce increasingly expanding Safe Havens of
benefit to all community members both young and old. Who better
than community members to be in resident patrols?
5. Provides on-going support groups for both parents and children
to help rebuild families as well as entire communities.
6. Merging CSC with the National Service Corps (NSC) gives teens
an incentive for staying in school and not having children.
Students can get support for college and/or apprenticeship
programs and be significantly better off (more money, less work)
than if they are having to also raise a family early on in life.
7. Safe Haven is therapeutic rather than punative in that
individuals can remain in CSC positions indefinitely if they
chose or if this is all that they are capable of doing.
8. Through its emphasis on prevention and community service, Safe
Haven saves money rather than costing additional tax dollars.
Reducing gangs, drugs and teen pregnancies by even 10% would save
Illinois approximately $400M annually. On a national level the
savings would be a minimum of approximately $20B annually while
strengthening our communities in the process. Again, A PENNY OF
PREVENTION IS WORTH A DOLLAR OF CURE.
9. Fosters community empowerment by giving counties, towns and
local communities incentives (POCCIPs) for implementing Safe
havens in that with block grants they can keep any local savings
that they can achieve through agressively implementing
prevention-oriented programs.
10. Fosters local governmental accountability in that local
citizens can now see a direct benefit (eg, safer streets, higher
academic standards, lower taxes) by what they and local policrats
(politicians and bureaucrats) do in terms of implementing these
programs.
klsh337.n93
3
THE SUNDAY JOURNAL
page
Kankakee, III.
Sunday. January 16. 1994
9 Sections. 128 Pages
$1.00
The Senday learned. Lankason ill lesserv 16. 1994
'Safe Haven' aims
Tutoring
to protect youths
program
from crime, drugs
dropped,
no funds
By Phil Angelo
People present at the meeting
Managing editor
gave general support to Ladien's
By Lee Provost
proposal. although no (ormal vote
Approximately 20 people. many of
Journal writer
was taken
them elected officials or the heads of
State Senator Tom Duna. D-Joliet
Project Directions 1 not-for-ore
social agencies. gathered at River-
said be has written to lows and New
Kankakee tutorial program. will s.:
side Hospital Saturday 10 lend sup-
Jersey to get copies of their welfare
down because of a tack of more
port to a proposed Safe Haven pro-
reform proposals
Rev. Tommy Brown. the proces
gram.
There IS a perception - a stereo-
director. said Tuesday will be
Safe Haven is being passed by Dr.
type - that people on welfare are
last session until funding can
Kimbail Lacien a Kankakee psychi-
living the Life of Riley." Dunn said
found.
atrist Dr. Ladien's plan calls for
That's not true be said. People when
"Tomorrow we celebrate Dr. M:
after-school "Safe Havens for kids
offered a choice of working or =00
Un Luther King's birthday Toc:
so they can avoid crime and drugs
working. will choose to work.
we sadly recognize that our area
"It would be like the old CCC or
He said he's consistently supported
at Project Directions has surfered
WPA." be told the audience Satur-
social programs that work
tremendous blow." Brown sa
day. -We would use a corps of tutors
"I like the approach used by
"Nevertheless. we will continue
to work with children"
Franklin Delano Rooseveit." he said
strive to make the dream of under
Dr. Ladien says that even a penny
"Do something If that doesn't work.
ing this city in which we give a rea
of prevention would be worth a dol-
do something else."
ty."
lar of cure. He says that even a 10
State ReD. Jerry Weller. R-Morrs
Program administrators à
percent reduction in such problems
savs today's social problems prove
proached the Kankakee School Bac
as teen pregnancy or youth crime
that the welfare prgorams of the
for funding. but the board declin
would mean a oig savings to tarpay-
past 40 years have failed
because the program IS not-for-ore
$
He supports Learnrare 1 new
and the district has ILS own financ
state unitiative that would require
problems.
any dropout on welfare to work 10-
The program was
8 $3.0
ward a GED high school equivalency
for transportation costs and $5.0
degree.
for tutoring fees.
State Rep. Phil Novak. D-Bradley,
Project Directions is a tutor.
said that while be supported the idea
service that meets from 5-6:30 2-
of Safe Haven. everyone must be
each Tuesday of the school year
prepared for the day the private
Kennedy Middle Grade School. ::
grant if it 15 received. runs out
available for students through
He said that while everyone today
grade.
wants to deal with crune by building
This is not a comment on
prisons. society needs to get at the
value of the project." Mrs. Gre
root causes "dysfunctional families
said at Monday night's board me-
latchkev kids and unemployment
ing. She added the distric:
John Tate director of the Victims
transportion fund is $100.000 D
Assistance Center in Kankakee said
red. Last year the district put $4.00
that the problem was more than just
towards transportation
black women on welfare. it was un-
Ruby Neison. a district teach
employed black men killing other
and program coordinator. request
black men. Tate. who has helped or-
the funds at a mid-December DOB
Jeurnal/Bill Byras
ganize Citizens Against Gangs, wants
meeting. At the time. she said 11
to hold a march this spring against
although the program wouldn't to
Above. Dr. Kimbail Lacien. a
handgun violence
it would be scaled back.
Kankakee esveniatrist. tells now
Suzie Brown. executive director of
Mrs. Neison said 75 percent of
Safe Haven can held youth by
the United Way. said existing social
students arrive by bus. There are
providing 2 place where they
programs do sometimes work She
students 10 the program The D:
can avoid came and drugs.
herself was once a welfare mother.
gram operates four private vans
but had the mouvation and drive to
There are 15 staff members
get educated and get a job..
But getting the program started 13
Journal/Bill Byrus
volved in the program. The $5.000
Frank Seebach the Illinois direc-
the reason "BV Ladien called the
S-s-s-s-steamy sight
tutoring fees would be paid out
tor of United We Stand (the Perot
leaders together. He wants to put
teachers on a per session basis
bipartisan pressure on Gov. I'm Ed-
organization) said that be generally
supported Ladien's ideas but also
The water at the Kankakee City Dam locks
Brown said 80 percent of the 5:
doesn't look as if the area IS going to get much
gar to release part of a 19 million
noted that there were few people
almost like a steam bath as the water's warmth
of a resolte from frigid temperatures. either. Al-
dent are below average :n one
private grant sent to Illinois from
more subjects.
the McDougal Foundation
present who were not politicians.
clasnes with the rigid air and causes water
though the higns today and Monday may nit the
Brown said be hopes to reopen
"Obviously we don't have many
vapor. It's a sign that the current of the river :S
lower 20s. the bitter cold will return Tuesday with
program in February when a g
That grant is designed. to fund
people from the private sector." be
slowing as the water ices over in some spots. It highs
zero
to
10
below.
from KCCSI will be available
demonstration anti-poverty pro-
said.
grams ID Ladies wants to
That comment trked several of the
sotain some ct those dollars for this
elected officials who pointed out that
area.
DV running and winning office Licy,
Unique local lifestyle revealed on 'Geraldo'
The one terson who can do it 19
in fact are supported by pleasy of
im Edgar. Idea said
common people.
By Phil Angelo
appears on the show. said the pro- er. married to someone eise Madon-
On the air. Animal said the cour
Managing editor
gram was a on broken mar. na. another woman. said their arguing about the mother-in-raw
briefs
Just call him an
relationship was platenic. but
Safe Hasen woold fund Reverent Brown's totoring and other
attersched programs using (5c perticipant r⁷ leasy 6 daystak
to provide positive alternatives to grow valance and significanth
improve Beader performance. who better then parents and
U.S. Department of Justice
Wishington, DC 20530
Memorandum
TO:
Leon Panetta
Chief of Staff
The White House
Betsy Meyers
Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director for Women's Outreach and Initiatives
The White House
FROM:
Bonnie Campbell
Director
Violence Against Women Office
US Department of Justice
Aileen Adams
Director
Office for Victims of Crime
Office of Justice Programs
DATE:
November 9, 1995
SUBJECT:
THE IMPACT OF WELFARE REFORM ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIMS
Domestic violence victims and their children have a whole host of needs, many of which are
traditionally provided by the safety net of social programs developed in this country over the
past several decades. It's hard to imagine how we move a battering victim and her children
through the shelter system and to economic independence without the benefit of a full range
of fundamental services which are threatened by the extreme proposals in the Congressional
welfare reform bills. Battered women and their children need shelter, child support, food
stamps, social services, job training, health care, and a panoply of other services that will be
denied to them unless the President acts to protect them.
900 ¥
950/rod
3311 ZOZO
01:40
98/80/II
Memorandum
Page Two
What is a woman to do when she and her children have left an abusive home and find that
their access to food stamps. child care, job training, and other social services has been
effectively eliminated? Violence against women and their children can only be overcome
when all the key players in a community come together. Government must be a part of the
solution. Denying adequate support for the children who live violent homes will only
continue the cycle of violence and create more expensive problems in years to come.
100
DSO/COO
ITBC LOS ZOZO
13:11
96/60/IT