It may be unusual for Republican governors to join some of the more liberal labor groups on cautioning the White House about the administration’s new welfare proposal, but their reasons for concern are clear enough. The president’s plan increases oversight by the federal government while flat-funding programs block grants to the states, almost certainly increasing state costs if they are to remain as effective as they are currently in encouraging people to make the transition from welfare to work.

A recent study by the National Governors’ Association of 38 states – 21 led by Republicans, 15 by Democrats, 2 by independents, including Maine – found that the governors wanted inflationary increases to block grants through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and they recently stated in a letter they sent to the president that, “states’ ability to implement innovative approaches to assist low-income families must continue.”

The money part is easy enough to understand, particularly in places such as Maine that look for increasing the number of ways to help women get the child care and transportation they need to get to school or work. Maine’s program is not perfect, but even the Maine Center for Economic Policy, which has often disagreed with the King administration, says the state’s reaction to the ’96 welfare overhaul was one of the best in the nation. However, maintaining the programs the state has created, such as its successful Parents as Scholars project, requires and deserves federal money.

The case for encouraging innovation – or flexibility, in the language of government – is somewhat more complicated but just as important. President Bush wants more people who receive TANF working more hours and to have fewer activities counted toward those hours. He would increase from 50 percent to 70 percent the number of state participants either working or in volunteer work-fare programs but would not include current programs as work, such as vocational education, and did not include something called load-reduction credits, which allows states to lower their work-participation levels once their TANF caseloads drop. The reduction can mean an effective participation rate of 30 percent, or less than half the level in the proposed overhaul.

That would mean that Maine would be required to use its money for work or make-work when it could be putting it to use in programs such as Parents as Scholars, which offers parents on TANF cash grants while they attend two- or four-year college programs. The result, according to a study by a group called the Maine Equal Justice Partners, is that the programs’ graduates receive a median wage of $11.71 an hour, compared with $8 an hour before. They are more likely to be covered by employer insurance and are more likely to receive other benefits. They are more likely

to leave welfare permanently and are more likely to encourage their children to aim for higher education.

Parents as Scholars can break the cycle of poverty, but it cannot work if new federal requirements and a practical reduction of federal block grants divert its funds. Maine’s congressional delegation, like the nation’s governors, should oppose the dismantling of programs that have worked to help people lift themselves out of welfare.