STATE CAN MAKE BEST DECISIONS REGARDING WELFARE SPENDING

Sometimes costly studies are so predictable that it is a wonder they are every done at all. Take a report issued recently regarding the effect on children of transferring most welfare programs to states from the federal government.

Here is a clue: The study was funded by a group calling itself the National Association of Child Advocates. A similar study is planned by a Missouri-based group called Citizens for Missouri's Children. Give up? Almost anyone who has observed how advocacy groups work could have accurately predicted that this study would take a dim view of and state's ability to adequately fund the needs of poor children.

This study encompassed 12 states, including Missouri, and -- surprise! -- determined that moving welfare to state control is a "risky experiment." Never mind that Congress adopted the shift in welfare because some states already have decent records of reduced costs for these programs without undue suffering on the part of those truly in need.

There is little question that putting states in charge of their own welfare needs will produce significant changes in the system. But the federal system was one of accretion. Simply put, the federal mentality regarding welfare has for too long tried to fix every problem by adding another costly layer of spending in hopes the problem would go away.

Of course there are needy children -- and adults -- that deserve some assistance from government. But the trend has been to throw millions of dollars after millions of dollars at poverty and its accompanying woes without ever taking stock of how effective those federal programs were or how the system was being abused.

Now states like Missouri will have to decide not only what its true welfare needs are, but also how much taxpayers can afford. These are limits best set by state legislatures. And, in the long run, the children of Missouri quite possibly will benefit rather that be exposed to great risk.