MAKING THINGS WORSE MOTHERS FORCED OFF WELFARE ROLLS STILL CAN'T EARN A LIVING.

Byline: Al Sheahen Local View

JUST a few days ago, we celebrated Mother's Day. What job is more important than being a mother? What work is harder than care giving?

Yet if President Bush's new welfare rules are adopted, millions of low-income mothers in our nation face a bleak future.

When presidential aide Karen Hughes recently quit to devote more time to her family, the president said: ``She has put her family ahead of service to my government and I'm extremely grateful for that approach and that priority.''

All well and good for Hughes, but if a welfare mother took that approach and chose to spend more time with her children, they might all wind up homeless and hungry.

In 1996, welfare as we knew it was changed to ``Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.'' Under the new TANF law, the federal government gives a block grant to each state. The law demands that each state enforce work requirements, as well as a five-year lifetime maximum for welfare assistance to a recipient.

The plan was sold to us as a way to get people off welfare, and it did. Welfare rolls in the United States and California are down by half.

But it didn't reduce poverty. The latest government figures show 31 million Americans - including 3 million Californians - still live below the poverty level. Welfare reform dumped many mothers into low-paying jobs with no benefits or ability to move up.

If there's one thing that's really demoralizing, it's working hard and not making enough to live on. A new study shows that very young children of mothers who moved from welfare to work are not faring better than five years ago.

The president and most Republicans claim TANF is a success. Leading Democrats disagree. ``Since when is hunger a good thing?'' they ask.

The Bush administration has proposed changes to TANF that will impose stricter requirements on welfare mothers than under current law.

Their proposals - approved by the House of Representatives on Thursday in a virtual straight party-line vote - will require mothers to work longer hours, but will restrict their access to education and training programs that could improve their skills. In addition, these proposals will provide no additional funding for child care.

The welfare rules are nearly as complex as the tax code. No one understands them completely. But, briefly, under current rules, a welfare mother must be working or getting training for 30 hours a week. The Bush plan would raise that to 40 hours a week - 24 hours on a job and 16 hours of education or training. It would also force states to move 70 percent of their remaining caseloads from welfare to work in the next five years. This would turn back the clock on flexibility for the states.

The president's proposal would allocate $300 million of taxpayer money to encourage welfare mothers to get married - to someone, anyone - as soon as possible.

The Bush plan has state governors up in arms. They say it will be difficult, if not impossible, for welfare mothers to meet the proposed work requirements. The National Governors Association says the states would have to create costly community service make-work jobs and divert resources now used to train, educate and move people into private-sector jobs. The plan is out of whack with the White House goal of compassionate conservatism.

The question some Democrats are asking is: ``Who will pay for the child care while the mothers are off putting in their 40 hours? Who will provide the transportation?''

The Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) helps defray the costs of child care by providing eligible low-income families with subsidies to help them pay for child care. Child-care costs can eat up as much as 35 percent of a working mother's income. Without CCDBG, many parents would be unable to afford child care.

In much of the country, public child-care programs have waiting lists, which will get longer if more low-income mothers are required to leave their homes to go work. In California, the waiting list is nearly 200,000.

The Senate Finance Committee will debate its bill next week. A final Senate vote is expected before the July 4 recess. The Senate Democrats are divided between supporting two separate bills. If Senate Democrats cannot get together in support of one bill, it is likely that Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., will drop plans for a vote this year, opting instead for a simple one-year extension of the TANF program. While that would have the advantage of not making the program any worse, it also means losing the opportunity to make improvements this year.

A Peter Hart Research poll found voters overwhelmingly believe that expanding training and support that helps people move from welfare to good jobs should be Congress' top welfare priority. Only 15 percent of voters favor tougher work requirements. A mere 5 percent support promotion of marriage. Four out of five favor increasing funds for job training, child care and other welfare-to-work programs. Fully 84 percent of voters favor allowing people to fulfill their work requirement by education or job training.

In another poll, 94 percent of Americans said if we work, we should make enough to live on. This is a notion that's basic to American values. It's part of our social contract. But will we make it a reality?

Why have welfare at all? For most of us, it is simply instinctual behavior; we look after our own. In a good country, your own includes a lot of people. It includes everybody.