OCR Text |
Show pagr The Summer Chronicle. Tuesday, August 9. 4 1977 1 Welfare reform plan is lesser of two evils Welfare reform has been a cliche political platform for a long time. Hot winds have blown out of Washington for years smelling of reform, of big plans and ambitious dreams; but when the wind stopped, the smell w as all that was left. Now, finally, something might be done to at least partially clean up the disgrace that has become the American welfare system. President Carter's plan, released Friday, to change the welfare system is like a cool breee after what we've been hearing in the past, even thought it too, is far from perfect. Carter's plan asks for, among other things, an incentive for people now on welfare to go to work. I le said he wants to make sure "work will always be more profitable than welfare" a phrase that sounds good, at least in theory by penalizing welfare recipients who are able to work and yet turn dow n jobs. The plan also calls for the creation of 1.4 million public service jobs ranging from installing security devices in homes of the elderly to cleaning up neighborhoods and improving school facilities. According to the plan, the increased number of tax payers through the creation of the jobs will also ease some of the increased cost of the new program, which will cost S2.8 billion more than the old system and will allow 32 million persons to receive benefits, up 2 million from the current level. But increasing spending and lowering the eligibility requirements for government aid has many people worried. Sen. Carl Curtis called the plan "a warmed-ove- r version" of a guaranteed annual (R-Neb- .) income, and other critics have been equally skeptical. In theend.it boils down to choosing the lesser of the two evils. Certainly employing those people in private industry would be better than feeding them from the government hand out basket, even if they are working in public service. The tax base would be expanded and the federal government would have no need to expand fuither in its welfare capacity. But public service employment is still better than government giveaways. Also, some of the problems inherent in the current system will not be eliminated, specifically, enforcement of the rules. In fact, it would seem to require a greater amount of welfare policing if, indeed, recipients could be threatened with benefit reduction for turning down a job. Government might become increasingly involved in making work for people, drawn into more of a father-figurthan it is now, said he the fact President the despite wants to "break the welfare cycle" by out-rig- ht N FOCUS How do vou fetl about a couple living together if they are not married? Does it make any difference if they have (or want to hae) children? Mike Allt-n- , 21. graduate studrnt in MBA program think t! h a nice adjustment protest for two people who are considering getting serious with one another. If two people want to share that experience, then it could he very rewarding; if tt doesn't work, that could be a good learning experience. Having children complicates it. I do not lim e anything against hai ing childien out of wedlock, but society would place a burden on that child and he might suffer V somewhat. j e weaning recipients away from dependence on government and into jobs. According to government estimates, only 12 percent of the 1.4 million jobs to Ik created will be filled by people now on welfare; the majority will come from 2 million newly eligible for aid. Admittedly, no welfare plan could ever be completely perfect and agreeable to everyone, and certainly no one really likes the idea of having to have a welfare system at all. Taken in that light, Carter's system should be an improvement over the current welfare fiasco, even with its drawbacks. ' ! I ... r ..,4 Llaine Broadlwnt, 49, Library staff feel couples living together would face the same problems as mamedcouples plus some additional problems. It is easier to separate because there is no committment and I think couples lose something through not making that committment. And the couple doesn't gam anything. It would be harder on children because they would not hair a stable home life. Lynn Ohran, 22, graduate student in special education-- Ac been surprised that it has happened with people I know. I approve of most of it if it really helps a relationship and leads to marriage. It seems sort of funny to spend all that time and money tf the relationship goes sour. I know there is a difference between children with only one parent and children with two, so I think if a couple is going to have children, they should get married for the child's sake. 2 Bill Slaughter, 20, undergraduate political science As far as I'm concerned, the only way to get to know someone well enough to marry them is to live with them. I have no moral qualms about it but the legal side is a hassle. I don't know about having children. 'Joy ride' |