Bush's new welfare policies: A step in the wrong direction

On President Bush's wishlist for the remainder of this Congress are an energy bill that would increase domestic production of oil and gas, a ban on human cloning, and legislation that would make governmental social services grants available to religious groups.

All of those wishes are, quite frankly, terrifying to anyone who cares about the environment, health care or the separation of church and state, but the more concerning item on the agenda is a nasty version of welfare reform that would make harsher work requirements necessary for recipients.

Bush wants beneficiaries to work 40 hours a week now, instead of the 30 currently required. "Com-passionate conservatism," indeed.

Some Democrats, however, want to reduce the number of hours required, and their efforts should be applauded. Most welfare recipients are single mothers struggling to get by as they try to take care of their children and work 30 hours a week. Without providing more childcare options to these women, how exactly are they supposed to work full time? Often, older children have no choice but to drop out of school to take care of younger siblings and cousins, or if their families do not meet welfare requirements, to bring additional income into the home so that basic needs are met, continuing the cycle of poverty that plagues our nation.

The welfare reforms being debated by Congress ignore another troubling problem, racism. Despite tremendous efforts by politicians and social movements, racism still exists in America and can be witnessed by a simple trip to a local restaurant. The relatively high-paying jobs, servers and bartenders, are frequently filled by white employees, while busboy and dishwasher positions are mostly minorities. It's much easier to get a good job — or any job at all — when you are or appear to be white.

Furthermore, where are these jobs where poor people are supposed to go work? Even ignoring the fact that the job market is abysmal right now, a favorite professor pointed out that there are only a limited amount of employment opportunities in poor neighborhoods and downtown areas for people without high school diplomas, so many people must look to the suburbs or wealthier areas of cities to find positions as domestic workers. This requires transportation, and for someone who does not own a car getting a job is much more difficult. Some cities do have admirable rail and bus systems, but it is hard to find adequate public transportation outside of the Northeast.

Another part of the new welfare reform is to promote marriage with $300 million in state grants and to support teen abstinence programs with another $135 million. Marriage, of course, is a good social contract that can help two people combine their resources and take care of children, but it's not always a perfect solution. Not every couple that has children belongs together. Unfortunately, many men abuse their wives, girlfriends and children, and once a couple marries, separation becomes more difficult, and so rewarding unhealthy marriages could have serious repercussions for the well being of wives and children.

The abstinence programs are even more troublesome. Yes, abstinence protects against pregnancy, but abstinence programs do not. Abstinence programs replace more sensible programs that include information on birth control, and so, with Bush's program, teens will not be taught about methods of contraception, only encouraged to wait until marriage before having sexual relations. Here's a news flash: Teenagers will have sex despite the risk of pregnancy. The most sensible method of tackling this problem is to lessen the chances of pregnancy by introducing teenagers to condoms, birth control pills and other methods of contraception. In fact, we could take this solution a step further and have Medicaid cover birth control.

Republican senator Phil Gramm from Texas sent me a reply to a letter similar to this editorial that I sent him. He claims that "welfare policies penalize hard work . . . while rewarding irresponsibility and dependency," drive fathers out of poor households and encourage Americans to remain impoverished. This man clearly has never lived or worked among the truly poor. I wish it were just the old guard of Republicans who were so ignorant, but I have heard on too many occasions from adults and students alike, that people on welfare are "lazy," and that the poor, especially minorities, bog down our economy, apparently by just sitting around, doing nothing and collecting welfare checks, only getting up to breed so that they can earn more money off their offspring.

I challenge these classist people to get out of their protective bubbles and go into Oak Cliff in Dallas, or to a trailer park, or to the part of their cities that they've been told to avoid at night. I've spent time in these places, and the people who live there are not lazy. They do not want to be on welfare, but they have been dealt a bad lot in life and need those of us who were so fortunate to have been born into a privileged life to help them out. Bush's welfare reform plan is a step in the wrong direction. Natalya Efros is from Plano, Texas. She can be reached at eefros@princeton.edu.