Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-06-14
Man in the House.

We are inclined to agree with the
generalization Of the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare that a
child, otherwise eligible for public as
S1Stance under the id-to-dependent-
children program, should not be pena-
lied for the failings of his parents. The
present District welfare program is In
some respects contrary to this national
policy.
But there is no fast or easy way to
eliminate the fact Of such penalties.
For the hastily-conceived panacea is
apt to create new set of conditions
which may be fully as undesirable as
the wrong 1t is intended to correct. The
commissioners, In our opinion, have
stepped into just such trap with their
new welfare proposal to the House
District Appropriations Subcommittee.
Let us look at its effects.
First, so as not to penalize the chill
dren Of unemployed fathers, ADO grants
would be made available to any house.
hold in which the father works less than
80 hours a week. It is the intention,
ultimately, that such fathers would be
enrolled in work-training courses, or
possibly assigned to city works projects,
and that they would be required to ac-
cept Jobs offered them. But can there
be any doubt that there would be little
incentive for these fathers actually to
look for employment AS Welfare Dr.
rector Shea comedies, the Ado grants
would exceed the total full-time earn
ing capacity Of many Of them. Could
they be expected to work more than
80 hours, and thus reduce their total
income by losing relief? Is 1t not likely,
as Mr.. Shea suggests, that such "tem-
porary" grants might become a more
permanent pattern and thus dole?"
Equally questionable is a second
phase Of the proposal, which would
authorize grants in certain instances
to the child whose mother is living
with a paramour. Under the current
rules, such households are denied aid.
Under the new plan, full assistance
would be extended If the paramour is
unemployed and happens to be the
father Of at least one of the children.
Representative Rhodes Of Arizona, upon
hearing this scheme, remarked that it
would place "the couple who decided to
live together under a rather unnatural
compulsion to reproduce as fast as pos
sible before they get caught" OF course
it would do precisely that. The preva-
lence Of so-called "relief babies" has
always been a controversial subject.
Not to our knowledge, however, has
proposed which specifically would en-
courage and then substitute illegitimacy.
Mr.. Shea, questioned about some
Of these effects, conceded to the House
subcommittee that they were illustra-
lions Of "the dilemma in which we find
ourselves" We Sympathize with his
problem. Without pretending to have
the answer, however, we think that
there has to be better approach than
this one. Nor, despite the dubious basis
which the House hearings demonstrated
for the cost estimates of the program,
is the financial question the crucial
consideration.
The basic issue is whether the COM
munity interest possibly can be served
by plan to make it easier for thousands
Of low-income families to stay on the
relief rolls than to get off. Obviously
there are inequitieS in the treatment Of
extreme hardship cases which need to
be corrected. But solution which in
the process places heavier emphasis
on the perpetuation of public depend
ency than it does on the encouragement
of self-sufficiency is no solution at all.