Editing 75-13-A5 (section)

=== Transcript ===
Can welfare reform be permanent unless and until it takes place at the top level in Washington.—I’ll be right back.

Four years and a few months ago as most of you know California launched a program<SUP>1</SUP> of welfare reform that was spectacularly successful. Actually reform was a must because we were the welfare capital of the world. Of all the people in America receiving welfare, 16% were getting it in California and the case load was increasing by 40,000 people a month.

Almost from the moment the reforms were instituted we this was reversed. The 40,000 a month increase became an average decrease of 8000 a month until by last January. we had almost 400,000 fewer recipients than we’d had when the reforms started. This saved the taxpayers about $2 billion but equally important it enabled us to increase grants to those with real need by 43%.

Now the California welfare rolls are increasing and of course the recession is given as the reason. I don't deny that economic conditions and increased unemployment have resulted in some change and we knew also that eventually we’d bottom out as we eliminated the cheaters from the rolls. But I firmly believe that what we are seeing in California is the welfare bureaucracy just simply returning to its old evil ways now that those who created the reforms are no longer riding herd on them.

Case in point. Part of our reform was a community work project requiring able bodied welfare recipients to work 80 hours a month at useful community tasks in return for their welfare grants. Those who opposed our reforms to begin with called this slave labor. H.E.W. in Wash, only allowed us to do this in 35 counties—mostly the rural ones as an experiment.

Now the legislature and administration in Sacramento have cancelled the program. They infer it was unsuccessful and quote some of the welfare bureaucracy to substantiate the inference. For example they speak of the few thousand work assignments that were filled and while indicating an unknown (but smaller) number left the welfare rolls rather than work. Frankly I challenge their claims and
suspect it is only the first step in a return to the same old way of doing business which threatened to bankrupt the state.

In my last year in office we funneled 57,000 people welfare recipients thru this program into regular jobs. Many of them never served an hour in a work project but when they reported our job agents as we called them were able to get them jobs in the private sector. In addition thousands refused to report and were automatically dropped from welfare and never heard from again which is some kind of indication they had been on the rolls fraudulently and thus couldn’t report without getting caught.

But lets look at the human side. Here are some reports we received. (I’ll leave the names blank)—Blank was unable to get regular employment due to his appearance and general work attitude. He reported and worked satisfactorily at a community job—was placed with a private furniture repair shop and is now off welfare.

Blank no. 2—53 years old—2nd grade education. 2 years on welfare was put to work as helper to a school custodian—in 8 weeks he was hired permanently as a grounds man beginning at $495 a month.

Blank no. 3—She had some accounting skills but was unable to find a job. Her assignment was to help the county auditor. After working 60 hrs. she was hired on a permanent basis as an account clerk. 

That's just a sample. Here is a letter from a local govt, official; “Except for a very few, all of the welfare recipients have been good workers eager to earn their welfare grants. We now have 3 as permanent employees. I strongly feel the program is worthwhile not only to us but to the welfare recipient and hope it will be continued.” We have a stack of these letters containing such lines as—“To do away
with this program would be an injustice to these people.” “People aren’t naturally lazy they just have to be properly motivated.” and “Retain this program.”

Well it hasn’t been retained<SUP>2</SUP> because the welfare bureaucracy doesn’t want it—after all what would they do if all their clients went to work and became self supporting?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">