Dear Readers:

Last week we published a special holiday issue with a story about my flirtation with destroying my daughter's "Tamagotchi" toy with a claw hammer. That article drew a large and unexpected response. Some were parents who sympathized. A professor congratulated me on a writing a sly commentary on the invasion of technology into our lives [really it was just a Christmas story!]. My favorite response was from the mother who wrote that just that weekend her own daughter's Nano device had started chirping in the middle of the night, driving her finally to the point that she REALLY DID throw it out the window into the rain ("you go girl").

With this issue we return to the less whimsical topic of welfare reform. As we head into the holiday season we are simultaneously implementing a new round of Food Stamp cuts aimed at California's poorest. The following is an analysis of this year's welfare reform action at the Capitol, which we originally printed in our regular (paper) newsletter "Democracy in Action". For those interested in a copy suitable for distributing to others see our Web site (www.democracyctr.org) for a more graphically attractive copy that you can download for free.

Happy reading.

Jim Shultz
The Democracy Center

For a year the issue of welfare reform has moved like a slow earthquake through California politics. It began in August 1996 when Congress and President Clinton ended a half century of national responsibility for the poor and passed down to the states a lot more authority and a lot less money.

The "end of welfare as we know it" was ostensibly about moving welfare recipients into the workforce. Past the rhetoric it ultimately broke down to four basic questions:

1) How long should welfare recipients have to find work?

2) What should the state do to make sure that there are enough jobs and to prepare people for those jobs?

3) What kind of "safety net" should there be for people who can't work?

4) How far should the state go in replacing the assistance that Congress eliminated for legal immigrants?

Governor Wilson weighed in first in January when he announced a welfare reform plan that was among the most draconian in the nation. Soon after, children's advocates, county welfare officials, welfare rights advocates, and the Legislative Analyst each unveiled their own variations, all of them more sympathetic to recipients than the Governor's.

Throughout the spring advocates worked hard to mobilize public support for their proposals, trying to "reframe" the welfare issue under the theme, "where are the jobs?" The California Budget Project released convincing data showing that for every available job there were an average of seven potential applicants. Lawmakers settled into a long and cumbersome "super committee" process to try to craft a program of their own.

In early July the Democratic plan was finalized and sent to the governor on partisan votes in both houses. Wilson responded with a flurry of quick vetoes and only then did the serious negotiations begin. A Capitol full of freshman lawmakers learned Lesson #1 of California budget politics: it doesn't matter much what happens in their committees because sooner or later it gets hashed out by "The Big Five" (Wilson and the Democratic and Republican leaders from each house).

Wilson cornered the Democrats into exactly the political scenario that advocates had dreaded all year - a stand-off on an overdue budget over the issue of public assistance to poor people. It was a recipe for Democratic cave-in. Wilson learned this strategy well from the Democrats five years earlier, when a budget standoff over aid to schools helped turn Wilson into one of the least popular governors in recent state history.

By the end the Democrats conceded to the Governor on nearly every issue: poor families would have their aid cutoff within two years; a $124 million proposal for a state Food Stamp program was slashed down to $33 million; there would be no major public jobs program; and there would be no funding for prenatal care for undocumented immigrant mothers. Advocates and lawmakers got a reminder of Lesson #2 of California budget politics: the Governor gets the first say (by introducing the budget) and the last say (through the veto) and very little of what goes on in the middle winds up mattering very much.

On the other hand, advocates for immigrants and the poor demonstrated a level of collaboration and skill that went far beyond what they'd done in the past. Organizations such as California Food Policy Advocates brought advocates together in a strong coalition. The California Council of Churches and others reached out to their members across the state to keep them informed and involved. Organizations such as the Northern California Immigrant Rights Coalition helped put the spotlight on the people actually affected. Without all this activity the damage could have been worse.

As the welfare reform debate now moves to the county level, the basic questions of "welfare to work" will remain much the same. A statewide public opinion poll, conducted for The Democracy Center last May by EDK Associates, shows that Californians are more aware and sympathetic on these questions than a lot of politicians might think. Some of the poll's key findings include:

* The Need for More Jobs: Fewer than half the voters think that California has enough jobs to put every welfare recipient to work. More than 3/4, including seven out of 10 Republicans, favor the creation of public service jobs.

* Longer Time Limits: Two thirds of voters think that Wilson's time limits are too short and want recipients to have more time to find work.

* Help with the Transition to Work: Nearly 90% of voters want job training to be included and more than 80% also want child care.

This poll and others point to a strong agenda for advocates as welfare reform is implemented. Government and corporate leaders have a responsibility to make sure that real work is available, and that the combination of wages and other benefits are enough so that former aid recipients can support themselves and their families. That is what the public wants and what we need now to insist on.

"It [the Democratic welfare plan] was introduced by a former social worker and does a good job at maintaining the status quo and continuing the welfare industry."

GOP Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian

"It's about my grandparents. I can't go back home unless I do something important about this issue [restoring assistance to immigrants]."

Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante, before his decision to capitulate to the Governor on nearly all immigrant assistance issues.

"Can you say cave-in boys and girls?"

Greg Lucas of the San Francisco Chronicle writing a post-mortem on the budget standoff.

"Today is the first step in reforming a welfare system that for too long has trapped people in dependency and denied them the dignity of work."

Governor Pete Wilson

"Those people up there don't know how it really is, being on welfare."

Reena, an AFDC recipient from San Francisco

Note: For a full copy of the Center's Welfare Reform Poll e-mail your mailing address to: "info@democracyctr.org".

THE DEMOCRACY CENTER ON-LINE is an electronic publication of The Democracy Center, distributed on an occasional basis to more than 700 nonprofit organizations, policy makers, journalists and others.

Please consider forwarding it along to those who might be interested. People can request to be added to the distribution list by sending an e-mail note to "info@democracyctr.org".

Permission is granted to copy or excerpt any material in the newsletter, with notice and credit to The Democracy Center. Suggestions and comments are welcome.