The idea is to spur innovation by coordinating the various rules for different programs that serve the same families. But critics charge that the plan could undo important federal protections, result in less total spending on the poor and transfer vast power away from Congress, which wrote the laws in the first place.
A version of the Bush plan is included in the House GOP bill headed for the floor next week, though it is unclear how many programs will be covered. So far, none of the Senate plans released so far includes this proposal.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said he remembers wishing for this sort of arrangement when he was governor of Wisconsin. He imagined putting welfare benefits and food stamps on the same electronic-benefits card while integrating housing, education and training programs with welfare-to-work.
Last month, Thompson told Congress that the program could "revolutionize" the delivery of services to needy families.
Critics say it would allow cabinet secretaries, deliberating with governors behind closed doors, to simply waive away federal laws they dislike. They also say it would let states use money they would have spent serving the poor on more politically influential middle-class families.
For example, the bulk of federal housing money is targeted to the poorest Americans; under the administration proposal, that rule could be waived.
States long have been able to request permission to experiment with federally funded, state-run programs. These arrangements, called waivers, allow states to get around federal rules to test new ideas. It was a series of waivers to the welfare program that helped generate support for the sweeping changes enacted in 1996.
Now the administration is proposing what it calls a "superwaiver," where states could submit a single application to two or more federal departments to integrate services, melding dollars and requirements and scuttling whatever rules stood in the way.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said this week that the superwaiver plan, which has gotten little attention, was among the governors' top issues as Congress considers changes to the 1996 welfare law.
"We recognize the fact that that's a tough one because sometimes Congress may not want to give up some of the supervisory control," he said.
Critics hope Congress holds on.
An analysis being released Thursday by the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policies Priorities calls the proposal a "radical shift" in the way the nation creates anti-poverty policy.
"The superwaiver provision would represent a dramatic transfer of authority to the executive branch," the report concludes.
Similar sentiments were expressed in a letter this week to members of Congress that was signed by more than 200 groups.
The center's analysis details several specific concerns:
- Money allocated for one federal program, or set aside for a particular group of people, could wind up elsewhere when the programs are melded together. At stake: at least $27 billion per year, and as much as $87 billion if Congress were to include all the programs requested by Bush.
- Important federal requirements could be brushed aside. For instance, the child-care program requires that a slice of money be spent improving the quality of care.
- States are not required to run independent evaluations of these experiments. They could be implemented statewide immediately, rather than tested in a few counties.
- In tight budget times, states might meld programs together in a way that lets them replace state spending with federal dollars. That would free state money up for other purposes.
House Republicans have already trimmed the Bush plan a bit.
They specified that agencies could not waive certain laws, including civil rights, health and safety, fair labor standards and environmental protection. They also removed job training, Head Start, unemployment and child support from the list of programs that could be included.
Copyright 2002. Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
