Good afternoon. Recently the Citizens League the minneapolis-based non-partisan study group completed a year-long study of our Public Assistance programs Elite committee chaired by Robert Wallace recommended that the present overlapping system of state and federal programs be replaced with a single cash assistance program. This would scrap most of the welfare programs have been an active during the past 40 or so Years Gone would be separate functions such as general assistance Aid to families with dependent children supplemental income programs and the food stamp program eligibility for direct cash payments would be based on family size income if there is any and liquid assets not to include the value of a home.The league says the present network of welfare systems is chaotic and unfair often low-income working people have less pay after taxes than those on welfare who get their government payments tax-free report says the existing work requirements for Able Body piercings on general assistance is ineffective. So the league recommend steps be taken to make sure it is more attractive to work then to remain on public assistance roll. It calls for a comprehensive work incentive program would actually make it more lucrative for welfare client to find work than to remain unemployed the incentive program with group welfare clients into three categories those who could work full-time those who could work part-time and those who could not be expected to work as envisioned by the report a recipient who found work would still be able to retain a portion of his excuse me would still be able to retain a portion of his assistance payment in addition to his new income the committee chairman Robert Wallace in announcing the report several weeks ago elaborated on the work incentive theme particularly unfair aspect of our current system. If you're on general assistance today, you're eligible for $150 a month. You find some kind of a part-time job and earn $100 what the system does is that it reduces your Grant 250. So you still have $150 for the month by condro are program sets that minimal standard of assistance and says to the recipient. if you find a job that has some wages regardless of what those wages are $20 a hundred dollars $200. We're going to continue to give you some of that assistance. We're not going to reduce your Grant dollar-for-dollar as the current system does. Report recommends that administration of programs be decentralized and program information better publicized to better meet the needs of clients. And Alex says that all forms of Public Assistance and other government transfer payments such as pensions and retirement benefits be taxed just as wages are taxed report adds that low-income working people should be eligible for some assistance. Well the key to this reorganization plan is a Consolidated cash assistance program needy people would simply be given the money they need to purchase necessary goods and services. It would replace the so-called in-kind assistance vouchers such as food stamps would be used and for the most part it would do away with paternal government, whereby a welfare client purchases a service and the government reimburses the vendor, we believe that the recipient of assistance is the best judge of how that money ought to be spent. Rather than some of the rather than having it spent by some kind some type of legislative Fiat they in the provision of cash gives the individual the responsibility and the opportunity to dispose of effective income in the way that the individual sees fit. It secondly allows the individual to select vendors and spend the money in in the areas that the individual might feel he is getting the best service or goods and that was Robert Wallace of the Citizens League. Well, that is a very brief but hopefully accurate summary of some of the proposals contained in the Citizens League report and restructuring what has become known as the welfare system. It should be noted that the league wants the 1978 Minnesota Legislature to set up a timetable to implement these recommendations within 4 years. Also, the Minnesota Congressional Delegation is there age to move Federal legislation which would waive the state from certain federal requirements to facilitate enactment of this plan the Minneapolis Star turn the Citizens League report sensible courageous and wise in the same editorial two-star pointed out that some recommendations are very controversial. Especially the one that would have the state tax as wages government pensions and transfer payments and I would venture that some people will be upset with a system that gives people cash to spend as the to spend as they may instead of food stamps which are earmarked for certain commodities. Well this afternoon several experts are in our Saint Paul Studio to analyze this program to discuss its liabilities and possibilities and compared to the president's welfare proposals. Now before the Congress a few moments ago. We heard Robert Wallace chairman of the committee that reported out the welfare proposals Wallace is here today as well. We have Pearl Mitchell director of the voluntary services division at the Ramsey County. Welfare Department knows well the trials of administering programs as well as the situation for clients and our third. Yes to State Senator John Milton chairman of the Senate health education welfare committee. And I'd like to direct my first question to mr. Wallace, but please any of you who feel the need jump in at any point along the way. Mr. Wallace to start out. Could you define what we're talking about? When we speak of the Working Poor and how the present welfare system discriminates against that group. We have a situation in the United States that provides. little if any benefit to individuals who are working full-time regardless of what their earnings are wages might be There is in place a federal. Tax credit for people who work this tax credit will replace some of a person's earnings that are lost to the Social Security taxes. But in terms of that person being eligible for any in kind services or any cash Grant payments there, there's no system for that. because of the variety of welfare programs and assistance programs that have been created a person who does find himself or herself eligible for one program is often eligible for a variety of other programs the combination or the layering of benefits then creates an income not high by by any standard but in comparison to many of the Working Poor at least equal to that of the Working Poor, One of the major benefits of being on the assistance programs is the most of them carry full and complete medical coverage. This is an additional very lucrative benefit to individuals and families. And that would be something that a working person would have to be to purchase as a separate service some type of substantial payment for Health Care coverage through his employer or would it be accurate to say then that it's often the case that it is more lucrative to be a receiving Public Assistance then to be working at a job. I think it's unfair to to ever say that it's quote lucrative unquote to receive Public Assistance, though. Those kinds of monies in most cases. Just aren't they? What the public assistance program does do is make low income for low-wage jobs very unattractive for someone on the public assistance sister. The structure is such that in many cases. If a person does go to work the reduction in benefits both in kind and cash assistance may result in a lower net effective income for that person. Then if the individual did not work, this is graphically Illustrated both in our report and in the President Carter's recent welfare message In developing the report, where did you draw most of your data from in terms of of interviewing and and coming up with some of the figures that you did to demonstrate these points the leg spent approximately 8 months. Developing data, we talked informal sessions with between 50 and 60 individuals people who are on welfare people who are advocates for the welfare system people who work in jobs programs administrators Economist and politicians of people in the state legislature who are responsible for the welfare program. And in addition the leg made extensive use written materials analysis of welfare that have been done to date the report as you had a chance to read it and they all love indicates that our data is is quite current and the best available. As you mentioned them and I turn down to you Miss Mitchell d. Mr. Wallace has described him. I guess what you might consider to be a f and inefficient system in some respects one that might discriminate against those low-income people who do not qualify but but should in some areas. Do you agree with his assessment of the present system? Is it is it overlapping and I'm not meeting the needs of all the people that it should be. I would have to agree with mr. Wallace that there are persons who are eligible and are unaware of their eligibility due to the lack of information that is accessible to them. However at the same time I have to recognize that is more information is given out to the eligibility for welfare programs. There will be increased administrative cost and often times in taking a look at changing a system. We don't really take this into account at the same time. I think we have to be aware of the fact that all individuals should be insured access to at least a poverty level and then we have to give some thought to The richness of our country and must we really have property and would be my thinking that unless business industry education welfare Health, we all work together. This is been really isn't going to change your take a look at the kinds of people that we have on welfare in the age bracket of 20 to 30 who are not employed. I have to ask myself what about their educational ability? Are they really able to go out and get a job anyway, and we we don't plug into this kind of thing is so this is one of my concerns. But again, yeah that group was there was a lot of inequities, but it's going to take many of us to correct them. So it is a comprehensive problem 1 that's going to the mantoux solution Federal support in terms of do we really want to make a change and I'm not sure that we really want to make a change. You're not sure that the country wants to move zactly. Exactly and I think this is where one of our barriers exist report due to address some of these specific questions. And I guess that I would like to pursue them at least two of the questions generally and they involved the cash assistance concept to replace many of the Individual programs as well as the work incentive program President Carter is also very interested in all those means advocated by the two separate plans for Citizens League playing in and his planner are somewhat different in regard to work incentive program and we heard a tape cut featuring you talking about the present problem. Where are the work requirements in the general assistance area simply are non-existent. They're not they don't encourage people to work. I guess I would be interested and you will. For you to elaborate a little bit on what sort of incentives could be built in to encourage a person to get a job in and how the benefits wouldn't be cut back entirely. Should he or she land a job and actually become self-supporting to an extent? We're not making a judgment in this report as to whether or not a person will become fully self-supporting or not fully self-supporting and sends really not our our objective at least initially to look at that particular problem. The what we what we are saying is that if a person is willing to make any work effort that work effort ought to be rewarded. We've got a situation now particularly with general assistance in which a work effort is not rewarded. For every dollar earned by a person on general assistance. The grant is reduced by Dollar that means the person has has two choices either either to lie or to not not the get a job for not not bother to make any work effort. Well neither of those seem to be a particularly acceptable way for us to run to run the system. I was just going to comment on the fact that we are taking on additional cost and doing is very kind of thing. And that's why I'm concerned about whether we really want to make a change by the welfare or government or whatever and it's true. We do often times punish the person who attempts to get off the Bottom Rung. At the same time we have to deal with labor Private Industry Etc, and the kinds of wages that they're willing to pay. That's that's correct. I one contrast between are reported and the Carter recommendation The Carter proposal maintains this quote work requirement on quote for people who work our research has indicated that the work requirement has both costly from an administrative point of view and ineffective from a practical standpoint. We have people receiving Public Assistance not because they're lazy particularly not because they don't want to go to work. There are a whole variety of reasons why people receive public assistance and it's not the main reason because we we have a system that doesn't require people to work. So our contention is that why why I have work requirements work work requirements seem to be ineffective expensive for suggesting that rather than having some kind of administrative requirement for people to get out in the job market. Give them a strong positive Financial in settings. To seek employment part-time employment full-time employment. We're not making a judgment as to what a person might want to do. But whatever employment a person does seek and obtain he or she is rewarded for it in regard to the work incentive program as outlined in their leaves report. Today, we consider jobs and training and these sorts of questions. Are there going to be jobs out there and maybe this takes into account partially what you had to say for all about cooperation on all levels from different segments of society and labor and education jobs creation. And where would they come from? Did you consider that we do not look specifically at the employment problem. I think if you read the leg report, you'll see that it suggests that we have an income problem or we have an income support problem. We also have an employment problem. We also have a job problem, but it seemed to us clear as our research progressed that you could divide those problems. And the the income problem the income support problem is solvable. We have done extensive research on it for 20 years in the United States. We've had a variety of proposals has been debated extensively. There's a good feeling for Assisting people there's there's not a negative feeling in the country toward assisting people by contrast. The employment problem is is still still very complex and very difficult and we we didn't get into it. I think that the legs report suggests that the two problems are divisible and that a good first step would be to develop a comprehensive income policy and let's keep working on the job policy as well. How does a tax on government transfer payments public pensions military pensions? And this is a question. Maybe that Center Milton can when some light to because the legislature took a took steps to CR2 tax those sorts of payments up to about the first $7,000 or so, I believe how does that figure into report? What are you I think you applied to legislature for taking that step. And now I'm asking how does that encourage what you're trying to achieve by taxing those public pensions and it would include unemployment benefits after a certain point as well as welfare payments wouldn't be at least as worth as much as if that person is given a dollar from public assistance for the most part this proposal about taxing. assistance payments doesn't have any real meaning for the majority of people on public assistance their they're well below the tax system anyway, but it does relate to people who for example might earn $8,000 during the course of eight or nine months out of the year and then draw another two or three thousand dollars in some kind of assistance payments during the rest of the year. The person has an effective income of $10,000, but it's only paying taxes on an effective income of $8,000. We we argue that that person should not be treated better by the tax system. Then the person who works all year for his $10,000 or her $10,000 us another contrast between our reporting The Carter proposal specifically, I think a fair and Equitable Income Maintenance policy has to be messed with the pack system in some way to my reading of the Carter proposal this point that situation is not addressed. Does a reason behind taxing public pension Center Milton are the reasons that mr. Wallace gave jibe with what the legislature actually did. well, I think the action on the part of the 1977 legislature, which was more of an attempt than a success because it's you know, it was pretty well negated in the conference committee was more follow on to our previous action of of giving a text break to the Working Poor in the state of Minnesota that goes back to the 1974 recession and our approach there was to give most families with the low-income up to about $8,000 a tax break and then not to assessing with Minnesota income taxes that That idea of consistency though. Once you reach a certain level of income for you presumably have enough to provide for your family then regardless of what the source of the income is. Our feeling is that it ought to be taxed on that go to the bases regardless of whether it comes from a government pension or military pension or Public Assistance or any other form of income payment. And in that sense, it is consistent with the EI recommendation of the league. Okay, as long as we moved into the political Arena to an extent, so let me ask you. Mr. Wallace. What it is that you are asking Center to Milton and his colleagues at the legislature to do in regard to adjustments to state-administered welfare programs during the next four years State Legislature in addition to recommending a national kind of program that would of course have to be legislated at the national level. There are in existence mechanisms for states to obtain waivers. From the federal government with regard to certain regulations relating to the welfare program. We've we've suggested that the Minnesota Legislature develop or endorse a comprehensive reform plan in Minnesota. And at the same time seek those necessary Federal waivers in order that Minnesota. I can move forward with some some type of a reform program. Will you think that the Minnesota Legislature because of its recent interest in the whole Human Services income situation is probably receptive to this kind of an idea as far as we know nobody else. No other states have made a proposal at the state try to do it alone. Try to go out alone. There's a there's always a question as to what will come out of the national legislature and he is in is in fact the car to plan something that's going to be passed within the next two or three or four years who knows Family Assistance Plan under Nixon started off very well and then died rather quickly. There are changes need to be made Minnesota is in a position to do it and now seems to be a good time to get started with the job as far as some of the proposed changes Center Milton. How do you respond to these calls for change on and is it something that that's all that you are interested in as a legislator and would be could possibly begin reviewing. Well, I think most people know that what I would respond to personally and what the legislature would do sometimes are two different things but I am going through the report there many elements in there that I have support in the past and that I think we really married our attention in the in the upcoming session. I think Minnesota and other states have taken a very very hard. Look at Health and Welfare policies have come to the conclusion that there is far more that we can do on the state level then we've attempted to do in the past and for example, if he takes the idea of the single cash I don't think we need to wait until Kyra's finally makes up its mind what to do before we begin to put the mechanism in place here in Minnesota. And I think the lady suggestions tell us how that could be phased-in over for your. We've also because it take a very hard look at the cost of Healthcare in the state of Minnesota and the largest single part of that of course is the Medicaid Program which is included in the league recommendations. And and we feel that we can move ahead and help policy with regard to Cost Containment here in Minnesota without waiting for the Carter Administration to get it's a house in order and to get his proposals passed the Congress one way to do it is simply to take more responsibility at the state level in those areas that are not clearly defined as being Federal and the other is to ask for waivers on the usual kinds of guidelines and criteria that you have for programs such as Income Maintenance and medical assistance because a great deal this money is coming from the Federal. But some states not know States actually is done it on a sweeping basis. But but many states have gotten waivers from the federal department of h e w on programs that relate to Health and Welfare, usually on a demonstration basis pilot programs, but we know it is possible and its beliefs recommends that we ask for the waivers and I course at the if that if that's all we can do that. It's better than doing nothing. I think going step farther than what they report suggests here because it doesn't get of the structure of government is wheat, we create a new Department this session 1970s station called where we created the Department of Economic Security. It was a step toward separating Income Maintenance from other kinds of Health and Welfare programs and I would suggest that one of the next steps we might take on that one is to set up a separate kind of agency or 34 Health financing and take the Medicaid Program completely out of the area of Income Maintenance. And in fact take it out of the welfare department and put it into a mechanism which I presume will become some form of national or state health insurance. The reason for that is it Clara at that? Where is the programs at the league report talks about generally such as the afdc and supplemental Aid and the SSI and that kind of thing our income to people with Medicaid Program is 100% income for vendors and from providers of health services. So it doesn't belong in this it's been a subsidized service and is that mr. Wallace point out? It's been a kind of paternalistic thing where we will take care of your health care and we'll all be free and we'll pay the vendors that take care of you. It's been terribly costly. There are no mechanism in there for individual responsibility and part of I think the answer to Song the question Health cost is going to be to get the individual take more responsibility for themselves as well as to be at some risk in the expenditures for health care. And that would be the co-pay provision than the deductible that I recommend in the league report in which some of you may remember we trying to get through the 1977 session than that lost it at the last minute in the conference committee. Nikolai just just emphasize what John said our report did not look specifically in detail at the medical program. But in terms of cost the medical part of Minnesota expenditures for this whole area of Social Services, I believe will represent close to 60% of Minnesota cost in the next biennium. You may correct me if that's that's not not Rajan, but I think the Figures were something in the order of 1.8 billion dollars total expenditures of which 1.1 would be in the medical area. So this this whole aspect of Medical Care adequate Medical Care financing Medical Care is it is clearly a major part of the whole problem. And then what the is the league report points out one of the enormous disparities between being on being out of Public Assistance Program with Medicaid. And being a Working Poor family in the state of Minnesota is that you have somewhere between $15 and $2,000 difference there in an in a form of of income that is over at least a deferral of income of expenses for the family that doesn't have a program like that most typically when people work their way off welfare and get into jobs. They have a pair of time where the nut covers at all or if they're covered is minimal kind of coverage and it takes and many many years before they ever get a health program which is comprehensive or is all inclusive his Medicaid. So there's our building barrier there for people to be added to want to get off the public assistance. Would it be a sin simplistic or even an accurate to say that what we're trying to do is get away from third party reimbursement here in the medical care area. We want people to select their providers to exercise some discretion. And I guess the limits would be how would it work? So that money goes directly to people to spend for the particular element for the particular problem that they have rather than a direct government to provider transfer. I liked it. I like to see a system which in which every person is has responsibility for making those kinds of choices, but that the income that we provide them for the through the cash assistance program be varied according to their ability to pay. It might be a percentage of the total income. It may simply be a stepped-up grad, which was unable to purchase Olive a large risk pool which weaves we are in the process of setting up here in the state of Minnesota under the Comprehensive Health Insurance accident the 1976 and then simply allow them to buy into the system at a headache at a price which they can afford then out of the Grant and then have the kind of coverage that they that they need and then for optional services in the kinds of things where there's a lot of of the abuse the system to make it up to that leave it up to them if they want to be chemically dependent on all kinds of drugs. Things that that they typically overuse then that's her choice. But then again it's getting away from the paternalism of saying what you have to have and what you can't buy with this and what and what you need because I'm not persuaded that the Medicaid families need all the hospital and medical care. They're getting Northern the all the hospital medical care that they do get once they access system is particularly. I had a particularly helpful to them in terms of health status. Okay. So you're saying it makes more economic sense in terms of use of the public dollar to in that respect and responsibility where they begin to perceive that the health system is an enormously costly and and don't fully effective thing that we're paying for in this country and begins to build in their own sense of what that is and a very early age rather than having this giant third-party mechanism always bailing them out and and then taking Weather perception of how I want it cost to add that in terms of building and educational component into this not only for the low-income current recipients but also for the vendors and I think I heard the word abuse use and I think that this is a problem that we have to deal with that often times person who are complaining about the system are really doing very well on the system. And I think that many of our clients are very capable of handling their money and selecting a vendor and we have set of them know we will do this for you in this was said by send it to Milton. We are creating innocent these my words now a more dependents society and it goes to education welfare on up the ladder and it's some point we must stop doing this and say you must stand on your own feet. We will give you alternatives. I did this to me is one of the two key factors that we have to work with and this is where I seen citizen participation in the area volunteerism can be effective in education excetera. To add one other point to to emphasize what Pearl said the medical area is the most expensive of the in-kind services the legs report raises very serious a very serious philosophical question about all in kind services and one of those hidden sentences in the report John is that we suggest that the Minnesota state legislature. I'll look very critically perhaps even skeptically at Future proposals for in-kind assistance to people if if people need assistance in a particular area, maybe the real question is, you know, our basic payments not enough and love to work on it from that end rather than create a program here in a program there and another program for a specific group of individuals and a specific need. Let's let the person decide what his or her needs are and let them rash in their income. To their desires rather than through the legislative Williams, you've all made the point that it's important that people be able to recognize the costs involved in securing services. And it seems to me that it would jibe with what you said earlier about education and people who are on assistance in who have been there for some time. It's important for them to be able to not only to work jobs, but how to deal in the fiscal element deal with money. And so this it seems we could all be construed in as part of the educational process rather than somebody to get a job there off welfare, and I can't do any of these things for themselves and example in the area of Education in our junior high schools. Now, it's possible to be involved with call job training career opportunities, which means that a fourteen-year-old may only take two classes during the whole day the rest of the day maybe Spent taking care of children. How is this girl or boy when they finish the 12th grade going to be only another job market? What skills? Will they have? This is the kind of concerned that I can see when we have youngsters in families on public assistance that are in that kind of a system. So again, we all need to talk together instead of an opposite ends Pearl. I think you'd probably agree then with the statement that if we needed educational experience a learning experience, I should say in this system of income support best way to do it is to make the people aware of all of the costs involved and also of giving them their that experience themselves rather than government assuming they left tell me what Medicaid cost for what health care cost cuz I look at the Medicaid budget every months and it's enormous. It's alarming what you need to do is get individual people to start putting pressure. Vendors for the weather. It really does costume out of their pocket. And then if you need to increase the grant accordingly to get the 4 million people and stay Minnesota to be looking at the cost of hospital and medical care and the cost of drugs rather than just a few legislators cruising around trying to find somebody to knock off in the in the nursing home business, you know, you're going to get tremendous countervailing pressure is gone. But if you if you leave it up the government to do it, it's a very very difficult thing and it gets everybody off the hook. And then that's my major criticism of the Whole Health financing system. Not only public side with Medicaid but in the private side with the third party reimbursement sand blues and all the terrific benefits and everybody gets This whole Income Maintenance structure that has built up over the last 30 years is virtually in comprehensible. We heard the number of Administrators talk about their particular program the income program cash assistance program administrators knew anything about related kinds of programs. The system is just so complex that it's virtually impossible to to understand the the whole scope of the situation with John being and being an exception to that rule. But I think I make the point to say that if the professionals don't really understand or can't really understand the complex system is the average taxpayer going to understand how the person on assistants going to understand it and you can't have I think a good public policy unless you have good public understanding of that policy and until we find some way to simplify the whole mess. We're not going to have that kind of public understanding and we're going to continue to get Play the old welfare mess about people are making $1000000 on welfare and Welfare Cadillacs and all of that. I have to get back to my first appointment to do we really want to make a change and you're saying with your administrators are talking about the Income Maintenance income system and they don't understand each other system. They certainly can't be naive and I guess I have to wonder do they want to change anything welfare is Big Business and we know this now and do we want to do anything about changing the form of big business? Yeah, that's that's what you run into on the underside paroling and most complaints about the views of a welfare of dealing with terrorists really with me while I consider themselves with faith that the afdc mother that has the cabin up north in the boat and has a wonderful lifestyle but they don't talk about the drug companies in a nursing homes and some of the Medicaid Mills people pick their mother ripping off public funds and you know a normal profits. We're not talking there about the $500 that they steal from the public because I got a job as a waitress at they don't report. We're talking about a half a million dollars and $500 and that kind of Dimension so that the Inn at the present system right now probably uses primarily by these that used to ship those people that their, you know, ripping off and nickels and dimes. I really don't see the big bucks and I want it if you don't mind. I wanted to say it's even asked me about you know, what is the likelihood of this kind of proposal achieving some kind of success? And I think that I think we're in a unique position to be able to take a to make an effort to to put something like this in place because I think the perception Minnesota now is it we do have a capacity in the legislature now and we do have adequate Staffing and where to position perhaps to put together a complex program like this without having to wait for the federal government to to move and without simply consigning the state responsibility. Is that being the middle of this system and just passed through mechanism to get the money from Washington back to the people where it came from. I wanted to also just throw in something about that work requirement because although it's not in the Citizens League report if you if you start reforming welfare in any public body where they're politicians are You're going to have somebody come in with an amendment of her proposal that there be at work requirement because we got to get those folks to put in a good day's work. And I think the leg is very clear on that and then I support their position that the that you're not going to solve anything by getting people to March off to to to comply with something and then she started trying to legislate Behavior like that. You'll find people will find a million ways as many as there are people to get around that system and experience will be really a negative experience with employment rather than what we're trying to create and that is a positive feeling about employment. The basic issue really is goes back to the economy. And if the economy is we are kind of in this country isn't capable of providing enough real jobs for people to the private sector primarily and we're in real trouble and then and putting in work requirements to get people to go through a few Hoops just so that we can feel that at least they're not taking our money away from us. Is is that satisfactory except perhaps on the part of politicians and what people think that they're doing something and I'll to keep those Peters off the rolls the fact that matter is it that it's got to be meaningful employment Scott to be building with skills training and Anna and it's got to come primarily in the private sector and left the economy is able to a continent to expand enough to create that number of new jobs are these things are really just going to be Band-Aid approaches and I commend the league for not falling into that trap. And then and I hope my colleagues will be able to look at issue squirrel and the deal with it. Getting caught up and I think the report goes maybe even one step further John and and and it says even if We are not smart enough is as public officials to create the kind of economy that has a high paying job for everyone we're going to do to have a an Income Maintenance system. That's that's going to say to a person looking at a part time job. Yeah, I'll go ahead and I'll take that part time job for a while. Make some money here. I'll be able to see the government's not going to abandon me. I'm not going to have to live on this $2,000 that I'm making from the part-time job by the government's going to help me with a with a little assistance, you know, maybe 6 months from now or eight months from now, I'll have an opportunity to go in to a better time better type of job. You do two things in this category first to get used for work done and then secondly person is in the job market. He he or she is getting job experience job training making job contact people upgrade themselves and jobs by the contacts they make And if we can encourage people to look on on part-time work as as perhaps an entry a way to get into the whole job seen this might be helpful. If you made an interesting point Center to Milton that I would like to to talk about for a moment in regard to the something of a general conception that people on welfare are shiftless listless lifeless. They don't want to work and is that a misconception figures that show that only a minority people who actually are on public assistance could be working. Most people need to be there. That's right. Let that I'm having sat on a welfare board Ramsey County and having having seen most of these misconceptions dealt with answered researched and the data produced my findings in the ones that I've always been exposed to show that the the abuse of the system of the party. People who are the who could work and I really functional enough to be able to do that as his very minor and that the what the most of them is a matter fact, if you go down three categories, you got the elderly. You've got the disabled. You've got the Blind and got people with other kinds of of of barriers to their physical and emotional barriers to be able to function and the job situation and you run down that and most of those are what you'd called terminal. You're not going to get any younger less blind or less to save them. So as you go down to those categories, you get to the category of age of afdc and you find out you know, that old trade-off between the do we want to support the American family or do we want to take the the the parrot out of the home and put the kids in some form of child care or have the kids running loose in the streets while the mother is trying to get a job to work to support them. Obviously. We don't want to do that. So you got that hold. Play glory to eliminate and what you really boil to get down to is that the rundown of the people who are getting Public Assistance, who are we able bodies and could work but the percentage is very low and most of those people I think if you find it there what if there were job inside of such as those that are as suggested by this is insane you find those people also that although they may not work a full-time job that is their lifestyle or their work. Ethic is not fraps what it was what our country has traditionally held those people still would be able to make some meaningful contribution to work part-time or in some way and if we could recognize what they can contribute to the society. We probably get it down to a very very small number of people were really abusing the system but that's a long way from the public perception and from the perception the Press is created and what politicians know Pander to which is the emotional part of the welfare issue, especially I've been ignoring you. I'm sorry, I would just like to add on to it send it to Milton is saying and that is We as welfare employees are also the public and we need to be involved in an attitudinal change about welfare in terms of do we want to provide the support systems that are clientele needs and I see this isn't as a barrier. In terms of the job training or the employable person who can go out on the job very often within the welfare system. We put so many blocks in the way something as simple as not providing an alarm clock. How's the person going to get to the job on time when he or she has no time piece doesn't have a radio or television or telephone or people that don't have those things and yet we're saying we want you to get out and find a job. Have you been down to register in in these kinds of things and I find it as the employees. We are very much like the general public and are falling into the same system of what what can I expect to those people anyway, so we need to do something about trying to affect the train within our own welfare department to go along with the legislators excetera excetera and the general public can say we want to do something. Ultimately gets back to unemployment problem and frankly if you were going to really look at the how best to do give people a choice of what services they would purchase with the income that you would provide them through cash assistance. You may find an offline public employees and their union representative. So that losing some sleep about the fact that person really have a choice they might decide to care for themselves or they may decide to contract with a private agency to go to provide a service are they may decide to do something else has been which is a little unorthodox with that may be much better for them than going to what are traditional vendors of benefit provided. And so if you know, if for example instead of a person going and spending a lot of money on doctors and hospitals that person took their own money and made the individual choice of what they wanted to get into his meditation and I'm more healthful lifestyle and nutrition that choice is theirs and it might put some people in the drug industry out of business. To be a very complex decision. That's an introduction. That's an interesting point. That's why I like the individual choice because things have emerged from they'll be the things that people really need and want and that things that we've been kind of a culture in to expect as a side light to what John is saying. There's another paragraph in the citizens leg report that I haven't seen any publicity on but it's it suggests that this whole program that we're creating be open for vent prevent her bidding. So if so, the Hennepin County Welfare Department comes in with a high bed, maybe we'll find somebody else that can run it a little better will love that. running low on time, but there were a couple of Point I wanted to get to him first back to in kind of systems for a moment. And this is a hot issue and allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment if I may and this is regarding food stamps, which is a great issue and I hate to snow at the national Level side of the farm bill several other things, but when we do away with the cash Voucher Program such as food stamps, and I guess maybe it's because it's so it's so easy for people to see food stamps at a check-in counter. It seems to me that would generate a lot of public criticism because you would be giving people money to buy as they may instead of vouchers which are earmarked for specific commodities. What kind of response can we come up with that one? If I say they'll be buying cigarettes and booze and instead of feeding their children? Will it food stamp program is as it has been atrocious program almost every place in this country and Minnesota only 32% of those that are eligible are using it are participating is very little publicity about that. But we made it so difficult for people to get the stamps that they don't use it. So I'm very strong in favor giving the money line and purchased you always hear about the people that would buy booze and cigarettes and so on but I have to take another shot at at our traditional way of looking at things against a meal it that the in fact of people that buy dairy products and meat and all kinds of other good stuff and and and eat food that produces high cholesterol and high blood pressure and other cardiovascular disease are making a choice already and that doesn't get a lot of publicity but you know, the mainstream of American eating habits of this is really out of line to help with regard to health and therefore it have suggested all of us have to learn again what to eat and how to eat it. So it's an enormous program is not confined a low in People in low-income people abusing one way and other people abusing others with cigarettes when they purchase other things and and beer and then but some part purchase whole milk and eat a lot of that and dairy products and they're probably going to end up with heart attacks earlier than the rest of us. So who's to say I just think it's terrific to have an income and in lieu of a food stamp program, which has been paternalistic to begin with and then possible to administer and and depriving 68% of the people that are eligible for it in the state of the benefits they're eligible for Let me make a couple comments Neil. I can concur with John's criticisms of the other food stamp program, but I think it does deserve one positive plug and that is the food stamp program was a recognition on the part of the United States government. Finally that people that all low-income people ought to have access to similar benefits and that's what the food stamp program does the food the food stamp program doesn't say you have to be a particular sex and you have to have a particular family structure and you have to have this particular sociological characteristic to be a beneficiary the food stamp program says Based on your income based on your income based on your assets if they're lower than the certain level regardless of your sociological stature or structure. We're going to assist you. I think that's a positive step that concept and we're expanding that Concept in our citizens like recommendation thought to bring out again is the practice of Milton. What I was hearing is our old way of thinking we have to tell people what to do and we're not thinking about the fact that clients can contribute to a society. We simply say welfare. That's those people over there. And so people begin to feel that way. And as far as the food stamp program grows, I are very often in the store watch the people who watch the people that are getting food stamps and look at the reactions that they have. And they know nothing about this, but they're assuming that the people are abusing the privilege but I'm not so sure that that's the only place the abusive of dignity the recipients perception of of him or herself. The public perception of the recipient is very critical and any kind of new programs that are developed should take that into consideration. How how is this going to affect a person's attitude toward him or herself. How is this program going to affect the public attitudes toward the person who happens to need income assistance. Let's get to one more point for week include and that's in regard to determining what and assistance level would be determining allotments in presently. There is an income test of sorts and as I understand it the the league would the cash assistance Program would work so that a person's assets would be added up excluding his home. Is that correct? If I'm not quite sure what sort of income test or what sort of standards would be drawn there. Could you explain that briefly we have kept in our proposal asset and asset and income test when we speak of assets were talking about those assets that can be readily convertible to cash a savings account savings bonds those types of assets. Not your China closet. The reason we've kept the income and asset test is that there's a limited amount of money at any one time is going to be available for income assistance. And we think that money is most effectively targeted toward those people who are the most needy. That definition of most needy from an economic stance is his commonly determined by one's income current incoming by one's assets that's weave with cap that structure in place that is really the only criteria for participating in our assistance proposal. Okay, very good. Mr. Wallace, and on that note will conclude today's midday program. We've been talkin about the Citizens League report on welfare reform in our guests have been Robert Wallace chairman of a Citizens League committee report it out several interesting welfare proposals as well. We've had Pearl Mitchell director of voluntary services at the Ramsey County welfare department and state Senator. John Milton are things today to Tom keys and Lynn Cruz for production assistants, and my name is Neil Saint Anthony.