MISSOURI WATCH: THE NEW CONTRACT WITH THE POOR

Let's address the fact, right at the outset, that providing for the needs of a diverse low-income population is not an exact science. Pretending that an answer to the multiplicity of problems facing as many as one American in five can be found in one plan, proposal or law is sheer nonsense.

Finding the answer to assistance for an unmarried teen mother is not the same thing as creating solutions for low-income families whose principal wage earner is educationally handicapped. Funneling assistance to a single parent who has never held a job is different than caring for a child whose parents are indifferent to its proper development.

In an ideal world, Congress could enact a comprehensive welfare program, as it has just done, and all of the nation's public-assistance programs would suddenly be transformed into ideal agencies for the indigent. Ideally, the states, as envisioned, would provide enlightened programs, substituting common sense, locally adapted programs to take the place of existing projects inaugurated by Washington that are extremely expensive and hardly tailored to local-regional-state conditions.

We are not living in an ideal world, and the wish list enumerated above will not come to pass, certainly not without a lot of time, effort and good will.

Neither those who vigorously defend the recent reform bill passed by Congress and signed by the President nor those who declare, with considerable evidence in hand, that the new legislation will prove extremely harmful to America's poor can state their views with any convincing proof of accuracy. The lengthy, 1,100-page congressional act certainly seems comprehensive enough, yet it either ignores or glosses over several assistance dilemmas that are in existence today.

Logic would seem to tell us that neither of the diametrically opposed views is correct at this moment. The reform act may work, in which case the proponents are correct. The reform act may fail, or wind up being almost as bad as the current situation, in which case the opponents are correct. The point is, no one can say with certainty that we have now found the answers to problems that have been around since the first solution was sought in the Social Security Act of 1935.

One point that can be stated, without fear of any except the most partisan contradiction, is that the country needs, indeed deserves, a better system than is now in place. Those on both sides of the question can generally agree with this conclusion, which has some unassailable facts to buttress its view. Existing welfare programs are not eradicating poverty, even during periods of high prosperity. Although the U.S. is enjoying an almost certain temporary prosperity skein, the numbers on America's welfare roles continue to increase. In Jefferson City, the state agency spending the most amount of money is the Department of Social Services: nearly 30 percent, and growing. Yet the state's jobless rate is exceedingly low and Missourians' average income is growing. This does not give one much confidence that in difficult times, the cost of operating the DSS will diminish.

One of the reasons the current system is not working the way we have envisioned is due to the multiplicity of agencies, jurisdictions and interests involved in planning, administering and delivering assistance. While Congress often reacts to a presidential proposal on welfare, it is also capable of devising a system of its own. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is recognized as the principal assistance agency of the federal government, yet there either have been or currently are welfare programs in the Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Department of Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Since all of these departments have a piece of the assistance action, it is not hard to understand why the system is imperfect.

One component of evaluating the value of the newly created welfare reform is how one views the efficiency of state management of the existing assistance programs. Can Gary Stangler, sitting in Jefferson City as the state's welfare director, do a better job of meeting local Missourians' needs than Donna Shalala, sitting in her HHS office in Washington? If your answer is yes, then chances are you are at least optimistic about the new contract with the poor. If you view -more

Dr. Stangler as a bumbler incapable of originating, much less implementing, improved programs, then your view of the new legislation would certainly have doomsday written on it.

As the nation struggles with ever-increasing crime, urban decay, median income declines and devolution from huge to smaller bureaucracies, most would agree that the answers cannot all be found in the political arena. The players on the political stage are not given long-term contracts, which helps explain why nagging problems of an underclass America seem to have been with us since the beginning of this century and even before. Crime-filled, decaying neighborhoods are not the cause of our welfare systems' inefficiency but the result of our failure. If we cannot resolve these blights by increasing what we have been doing for six decades, common sense would seem to dictate that we change the system, not enhance it.

The common ground between liberals and conservatives on this issue is the mutual recognition that America must address the nation's poverty/welfare problems before they get worse. This may be the most important contribution of the new welfare act, which certainly changes, even if it does materially improve, the system now in place.

At this point in history, we would do well to place our faith in the integrity and efficiency of dedicated public servants and motivated private, religious and civic leaders who have long been the only true believers among us in caring for the poor. Politicians begone, and let the work begin.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of the Missouri News and Editorial Service.