Milford chronicle., 1961-09-15
THE NEWBURGH STORY

THE NEWBURGH STORY
Until recently, it's safe to say, a compar
atlvely small proportion of the American
people had ever heard of Newburgh, New
York, a city of 81 900 on the Hudson River.
But Newburgh has been very much in the
news of late, and has been the subject of
lengthy articles in numbers of national mag
azines and leading newspapers. For events
in Newburgh have focused national atten-
tion on the welfare problem-and of asso-
ciated problems and issues that arise as a
welfare state develops and expands
Last fall Newburgh hired new and ex-
perienced city manager One of his first
acts was to look into the relief expenditure
situation He found the payments came to
almost third of the total municipal bud
get-$983 900 out of So, 900 according
to Time magazine account. This was more
than was spent on the police and fire de-
partments. Additionally, such heavy relief
spending imperiled certain needed and
wanted municipal improvements, and
brought with it the prospect of higher
taxes.
The upshot was that Newburgh's city
council took long look at the tangled re-
lief picture and came up with a new 13-
national no less than state and local con-
troversy. 1t provides, in part, that relief
payments shall be limited to three-month
period, except for the aged and the physi-
cally handicapped that the mothers of illeg-
itimate children, who have any more babies
out Of wedlock shall be denied welfare as
sistance; that, when possible relief pay
ments will be made through vouchers in
stead of cash (the council found that some
cash payments were going for liquor and
other non-necessities) and that able-bodied
men drawing relief payments would have to
put in 4O-hour week at city work.
1t would seem that this tough policy has
met with much more approval than opposi-
ton, although, of course, there is plenty OF
the latter. A number of leading public fig
ures have praised it, at least in principle.
On the other hand, Governor Rockefeller of
New York is a dissenter, and so is the State
Board of Social Welfare which pays out
about a third of municipal relief expenses.
A legal problem appears here. Federal law
requires that the welfare program be uni
form within state, SO the Board fears that
Newburgh's intransigence could conceivably
lead to the loss of federal payments to the
whole state. So, in the view of David
FRANKIE, writing in National Review-a view
which many hold-"the Newburgh case
proves that federal aid brings federal con-
troll. 1t shows that federal aid mpinges not
only on states rights but on the rights of
local governments within the states
The basic problem has been succinctly
described by Times in these words: "The
welfare state means new security for the
millions who do not share the nations af
fuence. But it also means public interven-
ton in private lives job-shirking relief
chiselers who loaf at government expense,
and tax burdens that soar higher every
year" This is the problem that Newburgh
is seeking to solve. The towns council and
city manager are not opposed to welfare per
sc. They are simply opposed to what they
consider to be unjustiiable and expensive
abuses
What the end will be is not yet clear.
Meanwhile, an editorial in Life-which APP
proved the Newburgh action in general,
though not all the provisions of the program
made this significant statement: "Wash-
ington is now watching and waiting to see
what actually develops. SO will the u. S.
for over the years social welfare laws
have expanded to point where full, frank
and fair scrutiny of them is long overdue.
If charity begins at home, the neighborhood
conscience should assuredly have a voice in
administering public welfare funds The
great American tradition of generosity to
the unfortunate must continue. But New
burgh provides a healthy example of local
government assuming due initiative and re-
s~onsibility."