Nice Work If You Don't Have to Do It

From the "Everything Old Is New Again" Department:

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan derided "Welfare Queens," ostensibly parasitic recipients of taxpayer largesse, who drove Cadillacs to the bank to deposit their government checks.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton fulfilled a campaign pledge to "end welfare as we know it." The number of recipients was slashed. States enforced "welfare-to-work" statutes, requiring those who remained on the dole to work or attend school or participate in qualifying training programs in order to continue receiving benefits.

Now, in the 2000s, California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger, has declared, in the midst of a staggering budgetary crisis, that maybe "welfare as we knew it" wasn't such a bad idea. It's apparently more cost-effective to pay welfare recipients NOT to work. ("California's Zigzag on Welfare Rules Worries Experts")

Not surprising, really, when you consider that forcing parents (well, let's be honest, mothers) of young children to leave their kids at home while they go to low-wage jobs requires the state to kick in for childcare. What's worrisome is that this "plan"--allowing certain welfare recipients to stay home with their kids and still receive benefits--is only authorized for the next two years, i.e., until federal stimulus money runs out. After that, these folks may once again be required to jump through occupational or educational hoops to maintain their eligibility. Assuming, of course, there are funds to be eligible for.

On a philosophical level, we don't necessarily think it a bad idea to require some occupational or educational effort from those receiving public assistance. Indeed, many recipients seem to think it's a good idea, too. At the moment, the program is voluntary--welfare recipients can choose whether they want to stop working and continue receiving benefits--and so far, in one California county at least, "only about 10 percent of those who could be exempted from the work requirements. . . chose to do so." Apparently "Welfare Queens" are so industrious that state welfare administrators may have to make the program "mandatory for new applicants and some others."

Ironic, isn't it? After lambasting the culture of entitlement, a Republican governor--a disciple of Reagan--may force people to embrace state-subsidized idleness.

Lashe Baldwin, one of the women who might be forced to stay home, has parlayed her welfare-to-work experience into a recommendation for a full-time job. "Especially when you have kids," she says, "you can't just sit around and collect checks."

Well, at least you COULDN'T. But soon state leaders will be telling people, "Yes, you can." Until, inevitably, they turn around and say, "No, you can't--not anymore anyway."

We wish the Lashe Baldwins of California all the luck in the world. We fear they're going to need it.