Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Comments on Welfare Laws Run Gamut

The validity of two California laws meant to reduce welfare costs was debated before the U.S. Supreme Court this week in appeal hearings. One law cuts benefits for new state residents, the other limits benefits for extended families.

Under the 1992 law that was debated, a welfare recipient moving from another state would, for one year, receive payments equal to levels set in the previous state of residence.

The law has not gone into effect because of court challenges to its constitutionality. After decisions in lower courts, the matter reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

State officials said the temporarily reduced benefits for newcomers would have saved $22 million in 1993. In all, California spends about $6 billion annually for Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

The second case concerned how a family is to be defined for welfare purposes. Under current state regulations, children receiving welfare benefits in a household are defined as “one assistance unit” even if some are not siblings. But other states qualify their definitions for nieces and nephews (or anyone) living with a guardian, which results in higher total benefits for the household.

Gov. Pete Wilson, who supports both California laws, has said that the state’s high welfare benefits attract more poor people to an already over-burdened system.

Opponents, however, have challenged the laws, saying they are unconstitutional because they discriminate against new residents and violate federal welfare regulations.

Should welfare benefits be reduced for new California immigrants and extended family members?

Lew Hollman, senior attorney for San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services

“People travel to different states because they’re looking for jobs, not welfare. The difficulties in programs like those discussed (by the Supreme Court) is that they don’t take into account the circumstances of individual household units. It would not be beneficial to force some children to live in households that are unhealthy (just because they’d be living with their parents).”

Rich Sybert, former California director of planning and research, executive director of the California Center for Public Policy at Calabasas

“California has 12% of the nation’s population, but takes in at least 1.1 million immigrants per year. This is three times more than the rest of the nation’s share. (Yet,) California has a smaller percentage of its population working and paying taxes than any other state. Either the federal government has to help us financially, enforce immigration laws or give us a waiver to allow the state to lower welfare rates.”

Dr. Rino J. Patti, dean and professor of USC’s School of Social Work

“The problem of welfare is the problem of poverty, rooted in the absence of a thriving economy and employment opportunities. Tinkering with the system is largely based on a theory that there are adequate alternatives available. Moving people off of welfare means providing career training, job placement and the availability of jobs. (Without them,) the reduction of welfare benefits poses enormous hardships on families who are already poor. When daily stress for those families is increased, the possibility of their escaping the cycle of dependency is diminished.”

Janene Balantac, legislative assistant to Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills)

“The AFDC portion of the state’s budget is a significant one. It takes a lot away from other services that could go hand-in-hand with welfare. This cuts into the security we can give to taxpayers. A lot of people are frustrated with the system and the fraud that exists. They aren’t paying their taxes for able-bodied persons to reap the benefits of their hard work.”