A chart comparing what Utah gives welfare recipients to six neighboring states' grants is causing a bit of a stir at the Legislature - and may hurt poverty-stricken Utahns.
The chart in question was part of the fiscal analysts' presentation to the Human Services and Health Appropriation Subcommittee. It showed that Utah pays slightly more to three-person families that receive Aid to Families With Dependent Children than surrounding states do.Utah grants are $402, followed by Nevada at $372, Wyoming at $360, Colorado at $356, Arizona at $334, New Mexico at $324 and Idaho at $317.
Most people who looked at the chart wondered how people in other states even pretend to survive on smaller grants, since it's a real challenge for three people to live on $402 a month in Utah.
A handful of lawmakers apparently looked at the chart and said, "I don't see why we should pay more than other states." They see cutting grants as a way to save the state some money (I don't even want to think about where that money might be spent if special-interest projects arise, as they generally do at the end of the budget process).
Why is it that Utah brags about being different from other states in many ways, but when the topic is dollars for human-service programs, some legislators will lunge for any excuse to cut back?
For instance, I don't hear lawmakers saying that we should raise the amount of the stipend that the state pays to supplement federal Social Security disability payments. Instead, the supplement, once $10, has been cut back until it is now $5.30. While that's not a great deal of money, someone on a fixed income can use it to buy a couple of meals, supplies like soap or fill a prescription.
Idaho provides a $70 supplement for the aged, blind and disabled who receive the Supplemental Security Income checks. Although Arizona doesn't provide a supplement, each of the other states in the grant-comparison chart has a supplement that ranges from $20-70. It makes our $5.30 look pretty small.
I've been waiting for people who think we should be just like our neighbors to suggest we raise our supplement, but I haven't heard it yet.
I am really worried by the attitude that a major cut should be made just because other states have smaller payments. It ignores a lot of variables. Grant levels are based on a "standard needs" budget prepared by each state, and the factors vary greatly.
The cost of living is different in each state. The amount of low-income housing available varies. Food costs more or less from place to place. Wages vary. It's not as if the states had identical economic factors and the only variable is the amount of money put into welfare grants.
Worse, to me, it begs the biggest question of all: If families are having a hard time surviving on the welfare grant we now give them, how could they possibly survive if the grant were reduced?
The Department of Human Services recently released figures showing the impact a cost-of-living adjustment would have on an AFDC grant for a family of three. A 5 percent inflation COLA would provide only about $20 to the family, so it's not going to change anyone's lifestyle drastically. In the words of Cindy Haag, director of the Office of Family Support, "I would challenge any of you to provide shoes for two children for that $20."
Because of inflation, the grants steadily lost ground over the past decade. In 1981, a family of three got $348. Since then, the grant has increased 15.5 percent, but the Consumer Price Index over the same period has risen by 49.3 percent. So in real dollar terms, a welfare grant for three people in 1992 has $245 spending power, compared to what a grant was worth in 1981.
Utah Issues provided lawmakers with some interesting facts. In 1982, a family of three needed to spend $265 a month on rent (72 percent of its grant.) Cost now is $369, or 92 percent of the welfare grant.
If that family pays the $369 average rent, it will have $33 dollars to buy any food not covered by food stamps, pay utilities, telephone, transportation, housekeeping supplies, furnishings and equipment, upkeep, apparel, personal care, recreation, reading, education and non-prescription drugs, according to the agency.
If that thought isn't sobering enough, this one is: More than 32,000 of the people who rely on the shrinking welfare grants for survival are kids. Only 10 percent of AFDC families receive any housing assistance.
People who ask why Utah pays higher welfare grants than other states are missing the point. If people can't survive on Utah's grant now, it shouldn't matter that other states are doing worse.