The Senate has approved legislation which would drastically change the welfare system in the U.S.

Last week’s most popular sound bite has it that this bill constitutes “the end of welfare as we know it.”

With Clinton’s signature and an even more reactionary bill having been passed in the House, it is now probably only a matter of time before the revamping becomes official.

Whatever legislation we actually end up with, the two major fronts of the attack upon the poor seem to have been agreed upon: deep cuts in welfare spending and transfer of control over much of what is spent from the federal to the state level.

The Senate bill promises to cut $65 billion in welfare aid between now and 2002. “It could have been worse,” is about all that the majority of Democrats are saying.

Nonetheless, it is still enough to wreck havoc upon the poor. Nobody is questioning that.

Gingrich claims that he believes the poor should have a safety net, but that “it’s better done by churches and by synagogues and by volunteers.” In other words, he admits that these cuts are extensive enough to hurt the poor, but maintains that the damage will be minimal if people start donating more money to charities.

Realistically, charities stand little chance of making up the difference. For the past thirty years private donations to charities have been increasing at an impressive and substantial rate.

Even if this trend continues, however, it will not be nearly enough to compensate for the loses which would be incurred with the proposed cuts.

If the number of persons forced to live below the poverty line continues to grow at the same rate that it is presently (from about 26 million in 1975 to about 37 million in 1992) the inability of charities to supply the needed funds will be even worse than the aforementioned numbers indicate.

With welfare comprising only 7 percent of federal spending, one would think that our politicians could think of a better place to make these cuts.

The fact that A.F.D.C. money will be handed to states in block grants is even more disturbing. The major rationalization here is that states will be able to more efficiently distribute the funds where they are needed.

This overlooks the fact that U.S. voters are generally more in touch with their national representatives than with those on the state level. Iowans who are politically active know what Clinton, Grassley and Lightfoot are up to.

It is also easy for voters to register their opinion with these politicians by phone, fax and e-mail. In contrast, what goes on in the Iowa legislature and how to influence it is a relative mystery.

All in all, most Iowa voters know more about what is going on in D.C. than in Des Moines, politically at least. If such is the case, which it seems to be, the process of deciding how welfare funds are spent will becomes less democratic when it is under state control.

Beyond the issue of whether or not states will be able to distribute funds where they are needed is the issue of whether or not they will be willing to do so. We do not need to go any farther than our beloved governor for an example.

In May of this year Branstad claimed that it would be best for the federal government to turn control of food and nutrition programs over to state governments because he is, “… willing to accept accountability and believe that governors will protect the needs of children and families.”

Just one month later we find him saying that neither the federal nor the state government are responsible for making sure that the nutritional needs of children are met, but rather that the responsibility “lies with the parents.”

Of course this latter point is true. Parents should feed their children adequately. It’s so true that it’s not worth saying and we must consider the implicit meaning of Branstad’s words. This meaning seems to be, “I’m not, after all, accountable.”

In other words, shifting control of welfare funds to states places these funds under the control of those who are very unsympathetic to the poor.

To sum it up, a war is being waged against the poor. The White House has joined with the House and Senate in fighting Reagan’s fictional archenemy: the Cadillac driving “welfare queen.”

---

Tyler Wayne Roach is a senior in philosophy, English and religious studies from Des Moines.