Congress has plenty of heavy issues weighing it down, but that’s no excuse for setting aside welfare reform. It absolutely must address the matter in a way that allows successful states, like ours, to continue with their programs.
By successful, we mean reducing caseloads. As for programs — that should be left up to the states as long as they focus on long-term stability.
When welfare reform hit the nation in 1997 some states chose to focus solely on reducing caseloads while others, such as Washington, opted to take the path of putting parents to work. That meant using a large amount of the federal money for childcare. Recently, the House passed a bill that failed to provide additional funding for childcare, a move that would undermine the core of Washington’s program. Congress is headed in the wrong direction.
Our state’s WorkFirst program lived up to its name. Since 1997 more than 138,000 parents have left welfare and stayed off and the number of Washington families in the program has dropped 45 percent, according to WorkFirst. Those are impressive statistics. And they suggest that the state has addressed the root of the problem of families in need: adequate childcare. It makes sense for the state to address that hurdle so families can pay other bills on their own.
Last week Gov. Gary Locke announced an exemption for everyone on public assistance who is up against the state’s five-year deadline. With the job losses our state is suffering and the fact that we’re lagging behind the rest of the country in rebounding from the recession, such an extension of benefits is understandable — but not for the long term.
Currently, such recipients fall in to three categories. The first category includes people who are disabled or care for someone who is disabled. The second involves people who are making efforts to meet the WorkFirst requirements but need more time and help. And the third category is people who aren’t making any efforts and show no intention of doing so.
The extension of public assistance to the first two groups is understandable. It’s the third category that is disconcerting. The governor’s reasons for doing this are admirable — he wants to make sure the children of parents who refuse to work are cared for. He even reduced the assistance by 40 percent and has implemented a third party to apply the money specifically to paying the family’s bills and buying things the children will need.
Yet, this extension of assistance to the third group suggests that the number of people permanently on welfare will once again increase over the years. It seems unlikely Congress will continue to support welfare programs that show an increase. The state’s goal of putting parents to work must not be in conflict with reducing the number of public assistance recipients. Fortunately, the state has proven it can reduce caseloads by helping parents find steady work and better jobs.
Congress must renew its support of welfare to work programs. And our state must carefully monitor and rethink its support of people who simply refuse to work.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
