home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
122391
/
12231010.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
82 lines
<text id=91TT2830>
<title>
Dec. 23, 1991: Welfare:Cutting the Costs
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
Dec. 23, 1991 Gorbachev:A Man Without A Country
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 40
WELFARE
Cutting the Costs
</hdr><body>
<p>California's Pete Wilson offers a sweeping plan to slash payments
and change the behavior of the poor
</p>
<p> Pete Wilson is delivering a stark message this Christmas
season to 2.2 million welfare recipients in California: It's
becoming too expensive to support you. Facing a $3.6 billion
deficit (over and above last year's $14 billion), the Republican
Governor has called for an amendment to the state constitution
granting him power to delete $600 million worth of social
service programs from the state budget.
</p>
<p> Wilson's proposal is a combination of fiscal conservatism
and enforced behavioral modification for those who receive Aid
to Families with Dependent Children, a program that costs the
state $6 billion each year. If approved by a majority of voters
next November, the measure would automatically reduce AFDC
payments 10%, lowering the monthly payment to a single mother
with two children from $663 to $597. Furthermore, mothers who
have additional children would not receive more financial aid,
and yearly cost-of-living adjustments for AFDC would be
eliminated. Newcomers from elsewhere in the U.S. would be
limited during their first year in California to what they would
have received in the states they had left.
</p>
<p> Democrats in the legislature condemned the measure as a
demagogic attack on AFDC. In addition, some advocates of welfare
rights question the constitutionality of denying benefits to
newborn children. But state officials note that
public-assistance expenditures are growing at a 12% annual rate,
and they claim people are migrating to California to take
advantage of the state's higher welfare payments. In an
interview with TIME last month, Wilson talked about the tough
choices ahead: "What we are going to have to do, I think, is
make an internal decision to be less generous...There is a
limit to what we can absorb." Despite Wilson's fears, statistics
indicate that only 6% of California AFDC families have lived in
the state less than 12 months.
</p>
<p> California's initiative follows the lead set by Michigan
last October, when Republican Governor John Engler threw 90,000
"able-bodied" adults off the welfare rolls in an effort to close
a projected $1 billion budget gap. But Engler's "solution" has
produced more chaos than cure. Michigan's unemployment rate is
greater than 9%, and even highly qualified workers are finding
it hard to get a job. In the wake of Engler's edict, thousands
of welfare recipients have lost their apartments; seven people
who were disqualified from receiving welfare have died from
exposure this winter.
</p>
<p> Although Michigan's tough approach has few defenders, a
majority of voters strongly endorse the notion that states
should compel those on public relief to meet certain
requirements in exchange for being supported. A proposal under
consideration in Maryland is typical: welfare mothers could lose
30% of their benefits if they do not pay rent, make sure their
children are immunized against diseases and keep them in school.
The budgetary crises facing the states will accelerate the
trend.
</p>
<p> By David Ellis. Reported by William McWhirter/Detroit and
Edwin M. Reingold/Los Angeles
</p>
</body></article>
</text>