THE BITTER SQUABBLES LAST WEEK over welfare reform among Senate Republicans suggest the political difficulties of advancing the conservative agenda through that body. But they also suggest that today, the policy debate in America is among conservative ideas — and virtually among conservative ideas alone. The debate over welfare reform took place without the president, who ran on a platform to “end welfare as we know it.” Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democratic party’s wise man on the subject, complained about the president’s inaction but did little more than predict the direst of consequences from Republican policies.
That left the field to his colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whose disagreements over the bill were far more interesting than the presidential- political spin (Dole vs. Gramm) that dominated the press coverage. The ” conservatives” insisted that any welfare-reform package must include measures to restrict and prevent illegitimacy. But the supposedly “moderate” solution – – sending welfare money to the states and thereby ending a 60-year federal entitlement in one fell swoop — was also to the right of any position actively pushed only a year ago.
All 56 Senate Republicans agreed the federal welfare system is broken and needs fixing. They also agreed that the best way to achieve this is for the federal government to provide block grants to the states, an act that immediately eliminates one massive layer of federal bureaucracy. What divided them is how much control Washington should have over these block grants.
The “conservatives,” led by Sens. Lauch Faircloth and Phil Gramm, believe that if the federal government is going to distribute money to the states, it’s reasonable to place restrictions on how this money is spent, particularly when it comes to out-of-wedlock births. This position has been tirelessly and brilliantly promoted by Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation’s single-minded welfare majordomo. Faircloth reflected Rector’s thinking in a September 12 floor statement: “It is essential that any welfare reform legislation enacted by Congress send out a loud and very clear message that society does not condone the growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing.”
But nearly all governors, including such conservative stalwarts as John Engler of Michigan and most of the Senate’s less ideologically driven Republicans have argued that the states should be freed from the heavy federal hand. The block-grant money should be sent to the states with no strings attached, permitting the governors to experiment with the best ways to destroy the pernicious culture of welfare dependency.
The debate over the so-called “family cap” in the welfare-reform bill before the Senate last week highlighted the fault lines. “Moderates Kill ” Family Cap” In Senate Welfare Measure” trumpeted the Sept. 14 Washington Post. The headline referred to a 66-34 vote the day before that rid the welfare-reform bill of a provision dear to the “conservatives” — one denying states the right to increase cash benefits to welfare mothers when they have additional children.
While the “conservatives” mostly opposed the measure, which was introduced by “moderate” Pete Domenici, the ideological divide was not as neat as the Post headline would suggest. Voting with the “moderates” were such genuinely conservative Republicans as Spencer Abraham, Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Mike DeWine, and William Roth. They invoked the traditionally conservative principle of federalism to justify their vote, arguing that they didn’t want to impose additional mandates on the states. “The more that’s moved out of Washington, the more diffcult it will be to recentralize it” later, Abraham says.
Domenici claimed that federalism was the motive force of his effort to kill the “family cap,” but he may have been disingenuous. “There’s no consistency for Domenici. He wanted to strike the family cap amendment because he disagreed with it,” sniffs a livid Senate aide. The “moderates” were uncomfortable with the idea of the family cap, concerned that such measures might appear “punitive” toward women.
Domenici actually supported an anti-federalist policy idea called ” maintenance of effort” that would require states to maintain at least 80 percent of their 1994 welfare spending for the next five years. Rector of the Heritage Foundation sums up conservative disgust with Domenici: “He has placed a permanent black star over his career.”
We’ll see. But while conservatives may delight in having the welfare debate limited to conservative approaches, the Senate’s behavior last week is politically worrisome for the GOP. This was the second time Majority Leader Bob Dole has had to put off voting on welfare reform (the first was in August) .
If it’s so diffcult to get welfare reform (the easiest of the big items on the Republican docket) through the Senate, how will the next parts of the agenda — Medicare, budget cuts, and tax cuts — fare in the weeks to come?
by Matthew Rees
