Workfare Belabored

There is an amazing degree of agreement about the nation's public welfare system: almost no one denies that the federal-state-local mishmash operates to keep millions on the dole, deprives many others of needed help, vexes taxpayers and tolerates a wide range of inequities and abuses that cry out for reform. There was every indication last week, however, that the cry would not be heeded very soon. The Administration's 14-month-old proposal to overhaul the system has reached a legislative impasse.

Hailed as the most innovative domestic idea to emerge from the White House so far, the Family Assistance Program (FAP) passed the House easily, 243 to 155. It has been supported by such diverse interests as the A.F.L.-C.l.O. and the National Association of Manufacturers. Yet the plan now has little chance of surviving critical wounds inflicted during the 24 weeks it has been before the Senate Finance Committee. Committee members found the Administration proposal had flaws of its own and would entail a large expenditure increase; FAP would add $4.4 billion to the present $4 billion federal share of the total welfare program.

Moynihan Concept. Aware that FAP would strike an antagonistic chord in committee conservatives of his own party, President Nixon had relied on Democratic liberals for needed support. But to them, FAP, as it would affect most recipients, was still not generous enough. The bill also seemed almost as subject to abuse as current laws. As Republican Jack Miller of Iowa said last week: "I don't know one member of the committee who will support the Administration plan as written."

Largely the concept of the White House's resident liberal, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, FAP would provide a guaranteed minimum income of $1,600 annually to every welfare family of four. It would eliminate the harsh proviso of many state laws that cuts off aid to a mother and her children if the father returns to live with them. The program would initially add an estimated 12 million poor people to welfare rolls, which now carry 11.6 million. But through provisions for day-care centers for the children of working mothers and requirements that able-bodied recipients must either work or undergo job training, "workfare" could also direct millions toward self-sufficiency.

This was exactly the point on which the Finance Committee's ranking Republican, John Williams of Delaware, expertly probed for and found grave weaknesses. Williams shocked his colleagues by producing figures assembled by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at his request. They showed that total state-federal assistance to an FAP-eligible family (food stamps, Medicaid, public housing) could in several states add up to more than $6,000 yearly, none of it subject to income or Social Security taxes. That is more than many self-supporting families earn.

HEW experts returned to the drawing board, but their revisions still would permit instances in which a four-person family headed by a woman could receive more in federal assistance than she would be likely to earn. Further, FAP's so-called work incentives are inadequate in the view of all committee members. It would be possible for an FAP family to increase its earnings by $1,000 and realize as little as a $200 gain in actual income--because the $1,000 increase would cut off food stamps and other benefits.

Conceding imperfections, the bill's supporters argue that it is more generous, equitable and work-oriented than any yet devised, and that its guarantee of an annual income is a historic forward step. But Committee Chairman Russell Long and others are wary of HEW cost estimates, noting that Medicaid now consumes almost $3.5 billion a year, five times HEW's original projections. Long and most other committee members favor further experimenting with pilot projects.

If the Finance Committee fails to send the bill to the floor with a favorable report, as now seems certain, Administration backers may try to attach FAP to a Social Security bill regarded as sure to pass. But without the support of Finance Committee members, the effort has little chance.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.