Bill Clinton: “Yes. And I have done it because it is consistent with my philosophy that the States ought to be able to experiment with…”

“Yes. And I have done it because it is consistent with my philosophy that the States ought to be able to experiment with new ways to move people from welfare to work. And there are some very exciting things out there. For example, Oregon and Missouri and one or two other States are saying to employers that if you'll hire somebody off welfare, we will give you the cash value of the welfare check and the food stamp check for a month as a supplement. We can't afford to hire all these people in public service jobs, but we need to have jobs for them. We're not just going to put them in the street. So we'll give you the welfare check and the food stamp check as a cash supplement, and you've got to pay them more than that, obviously. You pay them more than that. You pay them for a few months, and if you're not going to hire them for good when the supplement runs out, then you have to give us some advance notice. And at least they will have gotten the training. They will have something on their resume, they will be that much closer to being a member of the job market. I mean, that's just one example of exciting things that are being done there to try to reduce the welfare rolls and increase independence. Now, I agree with a very great deal of what these Governors are doing. The one thing I do not think it's advisable to do is I don't think it's a good thing to hurt children. That is, I don't think it's a good idea to say you can stay on welfare 2 years, and then we're going to cut you off no matter how young your children are or whether you have a job or not. In other words, I've been for a 2-year hard cutoff as long as the people have a job. And if you turn down a job, we ought to cut you off. As a matter of fact, I'd be for cutting people off ahead of 2 years if they turned down a job. I think we ought to be very tough when it comes to work. But we shouldn't be weak on work and tough on kids. That is, the only direction that I've seen some of this welfare reform take that kind of bothers me out in the States is that sometimes I think they're just trying to save the money, even if it hurts the children, you know, some of these experiments. And I think what we want to do is to move people from welfare to work, to make them independent, taxpaying citizens so they're paying taxes, not drawing taxes, and so that they're independent and they're successful at home and successful at work. And if that means we have to invest in child care and we have to invest in some training and we have to give employers some incentives to put them to work in the short run, I think it's worth it to get these welfare rolls down in the long run. But I don't believe the Federal Government knows how to do this very well. And I think that the circumstances of the welfare population, for example, in a State with a 2\1/2\ percent unemployment rate--or a community with a 2\1/2\ percent unemployment--are very different from the circumstances of one with an 8 percent unemployment rate. And the circumstances in a rural area may be very different from those in an urban area. So I believe that States and the community should have the widest possible flexibility on the welfare reform.”