OCR Text |
Show K Inside Washington f with Senator Jake Gam The country needs and is ready for welfare reform. Each year, I talk with many people who are anxiously awaiting reform and I receive re-ceive dozens of letters from persons giving examples of welfare abuses and proposed solutions. During the summer sum-mer of 1976, both political parties urgently called for welfare reform. There are three reasons why welfare is regarded as a system desparately needing reform. The first is the enormous cost. Totally, the welfare system is presently costing over $180 billion. A 1975 study by the Congressional Congres-sional Budget Office shows that expenditures for federal income assistance programs totaled $25.7 billion in 1955 and an estimated $142.9 billion bil-lion in 1975. Both amounts are in constant 1975 dollars. If the 1955-1975 trend continues, con-tinues, the total cost of federal fed-eral income assistance programs pro-grams in the year 2000 will be $1,220.1 billion or 33.4 percent of the Gross National Product. The second factor which makes reform necessary is the attitude of the people that the welfare program is a "haven of the rip -off artists." Although there are numerous studies which show only a slight percentage of welfare fraud, the American Ameri-can people are not convinced. In a 1976 survey, 94 percent per-cent of a nationwide cross section of adults agreed that it is not right to let people who need welfare go hungry. But that same survey revealed reveal-ed that 89 percent feel that "too many people on welfare could be working", and 85 percent believed that "too many people on welfare cheat by getting money they are not entitled to". Finally, the welfare system should be reformed re-formed because there are thousands of families that desperately need help and the govenment is not meeting its obligation to them. It is time to limit benefits toonly the most needy families, tighten eligibility requirements require-ments and improve incentive payment. It is essential that we reduce paperwork and simplify the bureaucracy, so long as such efforts are consistent with necessary reporting requiremtns to operate op-erate a "tight" program. In conjunction with these three reasons for welfare reform, re-form, I would like to add three proposals for reform.' First, the welfare system should not be federalized; Maximum flexibility and authority au-thority should remain with the states. It is the state legislatures and governors who are able to deal directly direct-ly with state problems and be directly responsible for their solutions. State control provides fifty "proving grounds" in which proposed solutions can be tested and interchanged. In this manner, man-ner, ideas can be cross fertilized fer-tilized and fifty research facilities can put their collective col-lective wisdom toward a solution. Also, when federal programs run out of control, we simply print more money. State and local governments have no such option. They must run fiscally sound programs. pro-grams. This alone should provide an ample argument against federalization of welfare. wel-fare. Secondly, any welfare sys -tern should be based on the Integrity and necessity of work, the need to maintain main-tain family stability, and the avoidance of any incentive toward welfare dependency. Utah has achieved significant success in recent years. ' Finally, we should have a program that will contain a simple plan to help the most needy fam illes without filter -lng large sums of money through the bureaucracy. Bureaucracies Bu-reaucracies cannot be ellm -inated and, in many cases, the need for an effective bureaucracy bureau-cracy is essential. However, the welfare system has become be-come a program to sustain various social guardians rather than the impoverish -ed. I think we can change that. |