Clinton urged to veto GOP welfare bill: Clinton says he will sign - allies renew veto push

by Fred Gaboury and Les Bayless

This article was reprinted from the August 3, 1996 issue of the People's Weekly World. For subscription information see below. All rights reserved - may be used with PWW credits.

WASHINGTON - President Clinton's announcement July 31 that he will sign the welfare legislation now nearing his desk brought immediate expressions of anger and disappointment from groups crucial to his election.

Citing the legislation's "detrimental impact on children," Mark J. Pelvan, associate director of the Union of American Hebrew Congregation, called the bill "horrible." He said the legislation "violated the most basic test of any society. It may 'end welfare as we know it,' but it does so at a tragically high price. Pushing more children into poverty under the banner of 'reform' is immoral and unacceptable "

In a statement released only hours after Clinton's announcement, Hugh Price, president of the National Urban League, said the league was "frightened of the implications of this bill for poor mothers and their children. The legislation is the action of a Congress shedding its commitment to the people ... and the nation will soon see the negative impact of its passage."

Price was particularly critical of the provision that will, after five years, cast families into the labor market "which has already shown it has no room for them." Price quoted a study by the Maryland Department of Human Resources that asked, "How do you get more than 79,000 people off the dole and into the workplace when you have fewer than 5,700 jobs to offer them?"

In a statement issued late Wednesday evening Bishop William Skylstad, chairman of the Bishops' Domestic Policy Committee, expressed his "deep disappointment" at Clinton's announcement. The legislation "may meet the needs of politicians, but fails too many poor children," the Catholic bishop said.

Gus Hall, national chairman of the Communist Party, told the World that Clinton "has made a serious miscalculation in giving in to the right wing on the so-called welfare reform bill. His move is out of step with where the people are at on this question."

Several members of Congress were critical of Clinton's announcement. Rep. George Miller, (D-Calif.) said, "Unfortunately, the president has joined the Republicans in making children the victims of the very system he said he wanted to reform." Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said if Clinton signs the bill he would be "throwing one million [children] into poverty."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.) said children and their parents "will be reformed and not even know it." The average level of food stamp assistance will drop from 80 cents to 66 cents per person, per meal. "I wonder if the ones who wrote this ridiculous formula could feed themselves or their children for that amount," he said.

While the bill made some concessions to the White House it sill forces millions off welfare and into a search for non-existent jobs while eliminating a $3 billion work program to get them there. It would let states deny Medicaid coverage to an adult who loses welfare benefits by not going to work and requires single parents with children over 6 years of age to look for work.

And, in what most advocates consider its most vicious feature, it removes the federal entitlement status of cash assistance to more than 10 million people who depend on Aid to Families with Dependent Children for their livelihood.

Clinton's announcement flies in the face of growing calls for a veto of the legislation. On July 30 AFL-CIO President John Sweeney urged Clinton to veto the legislation, charging that the bill was "bad for the country and harmful to poor families."

Other groups crucial to Clinton's reelection are also demanding that he veto the measure drafted by extremist Republican Rep. E. Clay Shaw (R-Fla.). At a recent press conference of labor, civil rights and religious leaders, Andy Stern, new president of the Service Employees International Union, said, "The current bill has been sold to voters as tough on work. Actually, it's tough on workers. It will drive down wages of the very people that Congress said it wanted to help by raising the minimum wage."

Stern said that since welfare recipients will have to work for their benefits, they will in essence be working for free or they and their children will lose their benefits.

"We used to have a system like that in America," Stern said. "It was called slavery and we abolished it."

House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on a final version of the bill that could be on the president's desk by week's end. The legislation would force states to terminate cash benefits for mothers with children if they cannot find work in two years and would allow families a maximum lifetime benefit of five years.

The Urban Institute, a Washington think-tank, estimates that the House-passed version of the bill will drive between 2.5 and 2.8 million more people into poverty, including 1.1 million children.

More than one out of five families in the U. S. - about 11 million - will be adversely affected by the legislation. These families will lose almost $1,300 a year in income and other forms of assistance. Half of the these families currently have at least one member who works, according to the Institute. The Institute estimates that spending for antipoverty programs will be cut by a total of 22 percent.

Another organization urging a veto is the U.S. Conference of Mayors which expressed "serious concerns with the welfare reform legislation" in a letter to House and Senate conferees. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, president of the council, objects to both the Senate and House versions of the bill. Daley said "the legislation will harm children, [increase] the poverty rate and make children who are currently poor even poorer."