When the Legislature meets in January, welfare reform will be on the agenda, although Utah's demonstration project is still going strong.
Last week two legislators introduced a proposal for welfare reform. The plan, which was presented in very general terms because no legislation has been drafted yet, has much to commend it.For one thing, the proposal is based on a push for "lean" government, according to co-sponsors Reps. Jeff Alexander, R-Provo, and Doyle Mortimer, R-Orem. You'd be hard-pressed to find many voters who wouldn't like to see government save money.
The proposal recognizes that welfare recipients are in a Catch-22 situation. They are not allowed to have many assets or tangible evidence that a better future is around the corner. If they work, they are soon disqualified from receiving assistance. Since many people find it impossible to make enough money initially to become independent, the system fosters dependency.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) doesn't reward building bridges to the future. The exception is the welfare-reform pilot, the Single Parent Economic Demonstration, which provides significant transitional services that bolster families while they get their feet under them.
Alexander and Mortimer believe people who work full time should not be poor. They also believe people should have hope for the future. They would allow people to accumulate some assets.
Another laudable point encourages the absent parent to play a meaningful role in children's lives. Right now, a parent can't even baby-sit his children so the mother can work at getting off welfare. If he does, the child is not deprived of one parent's support and the family can't qualify for AFDC.
The legislators also hope to boost collection of owed child support. Office of Recovery Services statistics indicate if owed child support was collected, a great number of families would not need welfare.
Alexander and Mortimer emphasize that welfare is not a lifestyle. Most people already know that. Families don't stay on AFDC for very long, as a rule.
A few aspects of the proposal, however, received harsh criticism from local advocates for poor families and from Human Services officials.
The most controversial is a two-year lifetime limit, like that proposed by President Clinton. It sounds good but doesn't take into account the fact that families on AFDC are individual. They have different reasons for being there and different barriers to overcome.
The proposal would put a 12-month limit on education or training activities. In many cases, such a short time limit will mean that people cannot train for work that will pay enough to allow families to get out of poverty. That seems to contradict the idea that work should pay.
The other controversy centers around a cap that would be placed on welfare payments so grants would not go up if more children were born.
I take issue with the premise behind that. It is often expressed and as far as I know not shown that women have children solely to get more welfare.
Grant amount is determined by family size. And when a new child is added to the family, the grant goes up between $50 and $79 a month. I don't know anyone who can raise a child for $79 a month, much less enjoy a surplus. As Jan Hansen, director of the Office of Family Support said, it wouldn't buy diapers.
That wasn't what most disturbed me, though. I was bothered by the fact that the issue was raised as a legitimate concern, but the sponsors said they didn't know how much money women get for having another baby or how many women actually do have children for the "enhanced" benefit.
I hate to single out these sponsors. This happens often. Legislators make proposals, but when questioned about some aspect cannot answer questions. They defer to fiscal or legislative analysts. As a voter and a citizen, I'd prefer that the laws which rule my life be drawn up by people who are very, very familiar with facts.
Constituents are expected to accept assertions. We don't ask enough questions. We don't get "briefed" on the facts.
When the results are less than perfect, we wonder why.