Let's put America back to work.

Let's Put America Back to Work. Rebuilding liberalism may involve not dreaming up gimmicky "new ideas" so mcuh as rediscovering solid old ideas that have been foolishly discarded. Senator Simon's book throughtfully champions the most important of these old-new ideas, the idea of guaranteeing every citizen a job through a WPA-style public works program: "[W]e have a choice of paying people for doing nothing [through welfare and unemployment compensation] or paying people for doing something." The argument is so simple one wonders why Simon is the only big-time politician in a long while to have hit on it.

Simon's guaranteed jobs wouldpay the minimum wage, or 10 percent over welfare benefits, whichever is higher, for 32 hours of work a week (leaving a day to look for private sector work). Medical and Social Security coverage would be part of the deal. Work projects would be selected by local business-government-labor councils; when a project was finished, workers would move on to the next one. This is designed to avoid the experience of the mid-seventies CETA program, when workers were often assigned to existing bureaucracies where they either displaced regular employees or simply padded the workforce, making no apparent difference in public service.

Simon has clearly thought aboutthe complexities attending his simple idea. He would, for example, allow 18- to 25-year-olds to claim the jobs only if they'd graduated from high school. Dropouts would have to get their equivaleency diploma first. Simon is also laudably blunt about the need to "fire those who don't show up, or do not work when they do show up." That, he says, "may not be uncommon."

A few nits. First, Simon presentshis plan as an alternative to welfare, but he fudges on the crucial, difficult question of wehter to require single mothers (the vast majority of adults on welfare) to take his gu aranteed jobs. Simon leaves that "up to the states," although he notes that "eventually most states will probably require that all but mothers with children under two or three must sign up."

In fact, the conventional wisdomis moving rapidly beyond this position. Mario Cuomo may be the tribune of old-style liberalism, but his welfare task force recently recommended that mothers be allowed no more than three years' cash "transitional" assistance even if they have another baby. During those three years, they would be required to work or train half-time. After the three years, they'd have to take a public service job. Unfortunately, the Cuomo group's excellent report has pointedly not been embraced (as of this writing) by at least one person, namely Cuomo.

Second, there's the question ofwages. By restricting his minimum wage guarantee to 32 hours per week, Simon hopes to maintain an incentive for people to take 40-hour private sector jobs. But then, in order to make this WPA jobs attractive to the welfare mothers, Simon offers them more--110 percent of their benefits. The problem is that, especially for mothers with several children, welfare benefits are already way above the minimum wage in high-benefit states, which also happen to be the biggest states (New York and California). In California, a mother with three kids can get $698 a month in welfare (not counting food stamps). That means Simon would pay her $767.80 for 32 hours of work, or $5.53 an hour, though she'll be doning the same work as others making $2 an hour less. A secure, $5.53 government job, alas, is likely to be better than any private sector job most welfare mothers can get. They'll have little incentive to look for private work.

Simon's higher-pay-for-more-childrenscheme doesn't seem fair (especially to mothers slogging it out for $3.35 an hour in the private sector). A better solution to the dilemma would be to pay all the neo-WPA workers the same minimum wage, but then use the tax system to supplement the wages of all low-wage workers (including private sector workers) who are heads of households.

But that's expensive, andalthough Simon admits his plan will cost money, he doesn't admit it will cost a lot of money. Specifically, he estimates a net cost of only $8 billion a year, before subtracting the value of all the public works and services. That's quite a bargain. But Simon puts the cost of each job at $6,000 in wages and $2,000 in administrative overhead. The $2,000 is supposed to buy counseling, day care for mothers, tools, building materials, and supervisors for the work projects. Forget it. The true cost would be far higher and it's better to say so up front.

Finally, there's the toughestpolitical question Simon faces, namely opposition to his plan from public sector unions worried about being displaced by cheaper WPA workers. Unions are the answer to the mystery of why the Democrats dropped the WPA idea in the first place. Simon hopes to appease the unions by giving them a veto in the local councils that decide on work projects, and by promising them lots of supervisory jobs and other high-wage work building highways, sewers, and the like, in a separate program.

But the unions, especiallyAFSCME, were paranoid enough about job competition in the late seventies to make sure CETA workers didn't perform anything particuarly useful, even though labor didn't have an explicit veto over projects. Now, take a look at some of the projects Simon proposes for his WPA: "Repair Sidewalks." AFSCME might have something to say about that. "Tutor grade school and high school students who need special help." Not if the National Education Association can help it. "Construction of a bicycle path." Better check with the Building and Trades Division of the AFL-CIO.

Well, Simon's a better politicianthan I am, and he thinks his tactics will work on enlightened unionists who realize that the quasi-full employment provided by a guaranteed jobs program would give an across-the-board boost to wages. I suspect a more pointed assault on union narrow-mindedness would encoruage such enlightened behavior, but there's room for both Mutt and Jeff here. If the ancient goal of guarnateed jobs is ever achieved, it will probably be by a leader who stresses its positive, upbeat virtues after others have pointed out the nasty, necessary, screw-the-unions and make-the-welfare-mothers-work angles. Maybe Simon's the one. Right now he's the only one.