Democrats Offer Tough Welfare Reform Package : Benefits: Plan is much like Wilson’s. But some recipients who failed to get jobs could have aid cut 75%.

SACRAMENTO —  Senate Democrats released a surprisingly harsh plan for reshaping California’s welfare system Wednesday that would penalize “able-bodied” recipients who did not get a job in two years by cutting their family benefits as much as 75%.

Putting their own twist on many of the ideas put forth by Gov. Pete Wilson to overhaul welfare, the Democrats, like Wilson, proposed capping benefits for new California residents applying for welfare, linking grants for teen-age mothers to school attendance and denying welfare mothers who had additional children any increase in cash payments.

But the Democratic plan goes further than the Republican governor’s proposed ballot initiative in providing work incentives and job training for welfare recipients and in requiring strict enforcement of child-support laws. It would mandate, for example, that all recipients able to work enroll in a job training or basic education program and would fully fund those programs with state monies.

The Democrats’ major departure from the governor’s plan involves the benefits themselves. Instead of Wilson’s across-the-board cuts in welfare payments, the Democrats proposed a system of regional grants that would vary from county to county, mirroring differences in housing costs.

In counties such as San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Orange, where housing costs are high, there would be no change in the basic welfare rate that now pays a family of three up to $663 a month. In all other counties benefits would be reduced by as little as 1.5% or as much as 4.5%. Housing costs in Los Angeles, San Diego and Ventura counties would dictate a 1.5% reduction in rates while those in Riverside and San Bernardino counties would require a 3% cut.

The biggest cut proposed by the Democrats would apply to able-bodied parents who refuse to work. If parents did not get a job in the private sector after two years on welfare or after attending job training, their benefits could be cut as much as 75%.

When jobs are not available, counties would be required to provide unpaid “job slots,” such as part-time park or day jobs. To continue receiving full benefits, recipients would have to work 25 hours a week.

Wilson’s plan calls for an initial 10% across-the-board reduction in benefits to be followed six months later by another 15% cut in the grants paid families headed by able-bodied adults.

In San Diego County, a bid to end benefits for nearly 2,000 able-bodied adults has been stalled by a class action lawsuit filed by Legal Aid attorneys. An appellate court March 17 ordered a full trial on whether the county can halt the $291 monthly payments to “employable” indigents after three months.

The cuts, approved by the County Board of Supervisors in January, are designed to save the county $6.2 million annually.

Senate Democratic leader Barry Keene (D-Ukiah) said the Democrats had attempted to match the governor’s total cuts in the welfare budget but to accomplish it “in a more humane fashion.”

The Democrats proposed several changes in administrative practices which account for much of their estimated savings.

“We’re not using a scorched-earth policy to attack the welfare problem in California,” said Sen. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), the chief author of the plan.

After an initial review, the governor’s office said the Democratic plan gives “encouraging signs” that there might be room for negotiation between Wilson and the Senate on the welfare issue.

“We’ve noticed significant common ground,” said Dan Schnur, Wilson’s communications director. “Imitation is the highest form of flattery.”

Schnur said there are still questions in his mind whether the Democrats’ projected budget savings of $522 million a year are “real or imaginary” or if Aid to Families With Dependent Children, the state, federal and local program that provides aid primarily to poor mothers and children, can administer a regional grant system.

Schnur said it is too soon to tell whether the Democrats are serious about restructuring the welfare system or simply looking for “political cover.”

Even so, he said, there appears to be much more compatibility between the Senate Democrats and the governor than between Assembly Democrats and the governor. In the Assembly, Democrats have proposed that welfare grants be cut 4.5% only as a last resort if state tax revenues fall short. Indeed, as the Senate Democrats were announcing their plan, the Assembly Human Services Committee was defeating a series of welfare bills that attempted to enact the governor’s program through legislation.

Advocacy groups for the poor characterized the Senate plan as disappointing, although they said they found it far more palatable than Wilson’s initiative.

Casey McKeever, directing attorney for the Western Center On Law & Poverty Inc., said the plan has many “positive elements” but he is concerned that the Democrats have accepted some assumptions put forth by Wilson that he considered “false and misleading.”

“To the extent that there are reductions in aid, to the extent that women are assumed to have children to increase AFDC benefits and to the extent that people are assumed to move to California because of its welfare benefits, we simply don’t find those assumptions acceptable,” he said.

On the positive side, McKeever said the Democrats had proposed adjustments in the system that would make it easier for AFDC families to ease into the work force by allowing a larger welfare check if they have high child care costs.

While the Democratic plan would penalize able-bodied parents who do not find jobs, he noted that it also made allowances for bad economic times.

The Democratic program also provides child care services.