The proposed initiative, intended for the November, 1992, general election ballot, was outlined by Wilson in a speech repeatedly interrupted by applause from the Glendale Chamber of Commerce.
The Republican governor’s stunning proposal is likely to create powerful political repercussions in 1992 as the measure plays out over the election year. The proposed initiative sets up a political struggle between liberals and conservatives, welfare rights advocates and the old anti-tax movement, and will force Democrats to take a stand on an issue they probably would prefer not to face as they run in new legislative districts.
Wilson was immediately denounced for using state budget problems to “scapegoat” the poor and for seeking powers that one lawmaker said would make him “dictator of California.”
Among other things, the proposed ballot measure would require an immediate 10% reduction in grants to families receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the largest welfare program administered by the state. About 2.2 million Californians receive financial aid under AFDC at an annual cost of $6 billion. The measure would require another 15% reduction in grants to welfare families with an able-bodied adult after six months.
In addition to reducing welfare costs, the proposal would allow Wilson to declare a “fiscal emergency” and cut programs without legislative approval. Wilson, like other Republican governors, has been frustrated by Democrats who control the Legislature.
Wilson warned that projections by the state Department of Finance show that programs such as welfare, which he said have been put on “autopilot” by spending requirements, are pushing California toward a $20-billion budget deficit by the year 2000. He said this “coming fiscal train wreck” is happening regardless of the current recession. Wilson said if welfare programs are not cut, then he would be forced to consider other “unpleasant” options, such as cutting spending for universities and prisons.
But Wilson Administration officials said the welfare proposal is designed more for long-term savings than for immediate help in dealing with the state budget crisis. State officials say the current year’s $55.7-billion budget may be underfunded by as much as $5 billion, while AFDC savings would reduce state costs by about $600 million a year.
The welfare proposal contains a number of provisions that Wilson Administration officials say would provide incentives for people to find jobs and keep families together. It would set a maximum grant that would not increase if a mother had additional children, and it would provide that unwed teen-agers receive AFDC grants only if they continued to live at home. Checks would be issued to parents or guardians under the initiative.
“It is time to end the insidious incentive we are giving single mothers, especially teen-age girls, to continue having children out of wedlock,” Wilson told the business leaders, whose enthusiastic response underscored the likely political popularity of his proposals.
The proposal affects only the AFDC program and would not apply to the Social Security financial aid programs for the aged, blind and disabled that are partially financed by the state. Nor would it directly cut general welfare grants by counties.
But it would impose restrictions on welfare benefits for newcomers to California. For the first 12 months, these recipients would receive benefits matching those in the states they left, not the generally higher amounts California pays.
The proposed initiative represents a calculated political risk for Wilson. He hopes to place the proposal on the November ballot, where it is likely to be an issue in the partisan legislative, congressional and U. S. Senate races.
Reacting to the governor’s proposed initiative, Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) sidestepped the welfare proposals and zeroed in on the new budgetary powers sought by Wilson.
The ballot proposal would require legislators to produce a balanced budget by June 15, as required by the California Constitution, or face a loss in pay and money for expenses. It also would allow Wilson to declare a “fiscal emergency” if the budget is not passed and signed by July 1 and give him sweeping authority to make budget cuts without legislative approval. In recent years, the Legislature has been repeatedly late in passing budgets as legislators sought to gain bargaining power with the governor.
Even if the budget is approved on time, the governor would get sweeping powers if the budget falls out of balance by at least 3%. The proposal would give Wilson a free hand to make additional budget cuts in programs not protected by the state Constitution.
Roberti said the proposed initiative “would make the governor the dictator of California.” Roberti said Wilson’s proposal “drastically alters the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.”
Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) in a statement said, “Today, under the guise of a so-called ‘taxpayer’s protection act,’ Gov. Pete Wilson sought to blame the Bush/Wilson ‘economic depression’ on the state Constitution and poor families, who comprise less than 5% of state general expenditures.”
But Republicans were quick to applaud the initiative.
Sen. Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear), chairman of the Senate Republican Caucus, said Wilson’s proposal was “right on target, not just from the standpoint of balancing the state budget but because we have got to change the incentives for people to move off of welfare and into productive jobs.”
The measure was immediately endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., named after the co-author of the landmark tax-cutting initiative Proposition 13.
Wilson said he was sponsoring the proposed constitutional amendment because “California’s welfare system is now growing almost 12% a year–four times faster than the rate of population growth.”
The proposed ballot measure was submitted to the attorney general’s office Monday. Administration officials said they believe it will pass legal muster, although officials conceded that some of the provisions, such as requiring unwed teen-age mothers to live at home in order to qualify for AFDC, push the boundaries of welfare law and probably would result in legal challenges.
Wilson’s announcement was deplored by the two liberal Democratic heads of the Legislature’s welfare committees, Sen. Diane Watson of Los Angeles and Assemblyman Tom Bates of Berkeley, as part of a nationwide Republican strategy to blame the poor for the national economic recession.
They cited President Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke and Wilson as holding out welfare recipients and the poor as “scapegoats” for the failure of the GOP to create jobs and national prosperity.
“I think the governor has jumped on the bandwagon of division and scapegoating against the poor rather than face the real problems of a failed economy,” Bates said. “It’s a nationwide tactic to try to turn everybody against the very poor, as if it was their fault that there are no jobs.”
Wilson, during his speech in Glendale, anticipated the criticism. The Republican governor said foes of the proposal “will stop the debate–or try to stop it–by labeling an opponent David Duke. I have nothing but contempt for David Duke.”
Times staff writer Carl Ingram contributed to this report.
Welfare Plan
Gov. Pete Wilson’s welfare initiative would: * Reduce welfare grants received by Californians under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program by 10%. * Cut benefits an additional 15% after six months for families with able-bodied adults. * Provide that teen-age parents who continue to work toward high school diplomas receive an extra $50 a month. Teen-age parents who drop out of high school would have their basic benefits reduced $50 a month. * Allow welfare recipients to earn up to $190 a month from a part-time job without losing benefits. * Cap AFDC grants so that unwed mothers who give birth to additional babies receive no extra financial aid. * Permanently eliminate annual cost-of-living increases that traditionally have raised financial aid. This year, Wilson and the Legislature suspended cost-of-living increases for five years. * Provide that welfare families moving into California receive AFDC benefits no larger than they received in their home states for the first 12 months of living in California. * Provide AFDC benefits to unwed teen-age mothers only if they continue living with their parents or legal guardians. Checks would be made out to the parents or guardians.