"We Go After the Real Source of This Problem"

By Bill Clinton, Ann Blackman, James Carney

TIME: The plan you're about to announce cuts off cash benefits after two years but has no firm limit on the amount of time recipients can remain in subsidized jobs. Is this in fact "ending" welfare?

Clinton: I think it is. Most Americans believe that working, even if it's in a subsidized job, is preferable to just drawing welfare and not working. I made that clear all along, that if we're going to end welfare after a two-year period, people had to be able to work. And if there was not work in the private sector, then we'd have to create the jobs. Second, I think that this bill, plus the earned-income tax credit, plus providing health-care coverage to people in low-wage jobs, will dramatically undermine the whole basis of dependency. Finally, we go after what is the real source of this problem, which is the inordinate number of out-of-wedlock births in this country. I think all these things put together give us a real chance to end welfare as we know it.

TIME: Your plan has been scaled back considerably. Why was the added money for child care for the working poor cut back?

Clinton: It would be better if we could do more, but this will help. A lot of the folks that need the child-care support are going to get cash benefits with the earned-income tax credit.

TIME: All the proposals on the table will cost money. But doesn't the public expect that reform will produce savings?

Clinton: I think it will produce savings. In the long run the expenditures we make will be more than repaid by people who move into the work force and stay there for a lifetime instead of coming back on welfare. And if we can change the value system of the society toward more work and responsible parenting, the savings are going to be enormous. Many of them can't even be - calculated in terms of how many more successful children you're going to have who don't drop out of school and don't get in trouble.

TIME: In coming up with the money to pay for this plan, why did you decide against going after mortgage-interest deductions for the wealthiest homeowners?

Clinton: Because I did not want to have a big debate here about whether this was some back-door way to eventually have middle-class people paying even more money for a welfare state. I think it would have been a bogus debate.

TIME: Do you plan to go after this provision in a second term?

Clinton: The answer is no.

TIME: The Talent-Faircloth bill cuts off welfare entirely to younger mothers and calls for establishing orphanages. Why not try something like this?

Clinton: I don't think that taking children away from parents against their will, if they want to try to be good parents, is the way to go. We've got enough families breaking up as it is.

TIME: You've left it to the states to decide whether to impose a "family cap," limiting benefits for mothers who have more children while on welfare. Critics say it will deprive mothers of the money to buy basic necessities.

Clinton: We've got some states that are trying it now, and we'll have evidence as it comes in. That's why I think the states ought to be free to try. We ought to let this thing be debated by people who are closest to the problem. I was in an alternative school in Atlanta, and I asked the kids if they thought teen pregnancy would drop if there were limitations on reimbursement after one or two kids, and 80% of them did.

TIME: Most people don't expect that there will be action on this until next year. If not, won't there be a loss of momentum?

Clinton: I don't think so, because the American people are too interested in it. Whether the bill itself passes this year or early next year is not of monumental significance. I think that the chances of ultimate passage are enhanced by the fact that Republicans did offer their own plan. There are lots of similarities. Ultimately, I don't care who gets the credit for it. I want the result.