BY BRIAN TAYLOR
Since Democratic president William Jefferson Clinton signed the welfare reform bill in August, state governments have begun to push through the cuts in social benefits it mandates.
The law proclaimed that as of Oct. 1, 1996, "no individual or family shall be entitled to any benefits of services" under state welfare programs with federal financing. In other words, unemployed workers are no longer guaranteed a minimal measure of public assistance as a right.
Under the old system, states would receive funding based on the number of people enrolled in the federal entitlement programs. Now state governments will get a "block grant," or fixed amount of money, independent of the number of welfare recipients, and will be responsible for proposing and running their own programs within the framework set by Washington.
This framework includes the elimination of the Aid for Families with Dependent Children program - part of the Social Security Act of 1935 - and cuts in many other programs.
Many of those who still do qualify for benefits under the new
regulations will have to enter what are commonly known as
"workfare" programs for substandard wages. The federal law
mandates a five-year lifetime cap on welfare benefits, and state
governments can set even tighter limits. Immigrants, including
those with legal documentation, are especially effected by the
new laws.
`workfare' replaces union jobs
One of the most blatant examples of how the "workfare"
programs are used against the labor movement is the recent
contract between the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the
Transit Workers Union in New York City.
The pact, which was narrowly approved in October, allows the MTA to eliminate 500 union jobs, cleaning the city subways and buses. This work will be done by thousands of city welfare recipients, who will receive just the amount of their benefits check.
There are already some 35,000 welfare recipients in the city's "workfare" program, doing everything from maintenance jobs to cleaning parks. This has been done with the tacit support of Stanley Hill, executive director of District Council 37, one of the largest municipal unions in the city, while public employment in the city has fallen by 20,000. "They said it would not be in lieu of union jobs.... It didn't look very threatening at the time.... It was just getting off the ground," reasoned Carl Haynes, a Teamsters local president in New York, speaking in Hill's defense.
By October 4, half of the state governments had submitted
their plans of how to meet the requirements of the new welfare
law.
Clinton praises `revolutionary' plans
The first two state plans approved by the Clinton
administration were those in Michigan and Wisconsin. The
president praised Wisconsin as having "one of boldest, most
revolutionary welfare reform plans" in the country. That state
government will require virtually every adult drawing welfare to
find a job.
Those that can not find employment will be forced to work "trial" jobs set up by the state, like community service. Payment will be a welfare check.
Wisconsin authorities will also require a 60-day minimum residency in the state before one can become eligible to receive the benefits. The New York Times reported October 6 that the Clinton administration "said this policy appeared to conflict with a 1969 decision of the Supreme Court that held that such waiting periods were `constitutionally impermissible' because they denied equal protection of the law to new residents and interfered with the `freedom to travel.' "
In Michigan nearly 50,000 people will lose food stamp benefits as of Jan. 1, 1997. The Michigan scheme includes allowing the state government to reduce or cancel benefits without giving recipients a right to challenge the decision in court.
The Clinton administration has acknowledged that this breaches the constitutional right of due process, but approved the plan anyway. Adults without dependents who do not enroll in state work programs will be eligible for public assistance only three months in a three year period. Yet until now the state work programs have only admitted those who have children.
Another feature of the Michigan plan will be giving some of the federal block grant to the Salvation Army, so it can refer women on welfare to religious families for help with child care, transportation, and other social needs.
The federal law gives states wide latitude in other aspects
of the welfare programs. State governments can choose to deny
benefits to those convicted of drug felonies, people who have
additional children while receiving public assistance, and
teenage mothers.
Other state measures
In addition to the federal five-year benefits limit, the
Massachusetts government proposed a two-year maximum in a five
year period. That state also proposed: requiring parents with
school-aged children to find a job within two months or lose
benefits, denying benefits to anyone who has an additional child
while enrolled in the program, and requiring teenage parents to
finish high school to continue to receive benefits.
The actual benefits will also be reduced by 2.75 percent in the name of so-called "work incentives." Workers who take these "jobs" must give up food stamps and other aid. Instead, the state will pay a wage subsidy of $3.50 an hour for nine months to employers who hire former welfare recipients.
The federal law says that in the fiscal year that began October 1, at least 25 percent of adults receiving welfare in each state are supposed to find work or enter "workfare" programs. But any reduction in the number of recipients will count toward the 25 percent, so states can find other ways to reduce their welfare rolls, such as making the application procedure more difficult.
The U.S. government has also imposed restrictions on lawyers
who receive federal money to represent working people. These
attorneys will not be allowed to participate in class-action
lawsuits for the rights of workers needing public assistance,
Medicaid, or disability benefits. They are also barred from
challenging or participating in litigation to alter the welfare
system.
Legal immigrants denied benefits
Some 44 percent of the projected spending cuts in the welfare
law come from ending benefits for legal immigrants. Under most
circumstances, these workers are no longer eligible for food
stamps and Supplemental Security Income, which aids the elderly
and disabled.
New York city and state governments started implementing this measure in September. New applicants for food stamps who are not citizens are denied aid outright. Most of those currently receiving aid will begin being cut off in April; some are already being dropped from the rolls.
The government of Florida has said that some legal immigrants could lose food stamps as of January 1997. All told, more than 1 million legal immigrants will lose food stamps and most other benefits that make up public assistance.
Commenting on the effect of the new law, University of California professor James Wilson told the New York Times, "Stigma has been reattached to welfare."