IN 1992 President Clinton promised "to end welfare as we know it". He is keeping his promise. He will sign a Republican sponsored bill that abolishes Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a monument of the New Deal that President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 61 years ago this month.
Condemning welfare is a popular parlour game among those who don't have to worry about their next meal. Clinton's promise to end it helped elect him. To embarrass him the Republicans made welfare a major issue this year. By signing the bill he took the issue away from former Senator Bob Dole. Clinton has put nothing in its place, but says he will - in a second term, presumably.
The President held a debate, with himself in the chair, his chief advisers huddled around him. Vice President Al Gore and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta took opposite sides on whether to veto or sign the welfare bill. Gore urged "sign"; Panetta said "veto". The people Clinton is repudiating for tactical reasons helped put him in office the left wing of the Democratic Party and African Americans. They know his dilemma.
The cabinet is split. A majority apparently want a veto. But the President's vote outweighs all others. The cabinet advises, the President decides.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna E. Shalala, was one of three glum faces standing beside Clinton in the White House briefing room while he delivered his verdict on why he did not veto the welfare bill. The other glum faces belonged to Panetta and Housing Secretary, Henry G. Cisneros, liberals both.
No one is likely to resign on a point of principle. They know the President's problem. Republicans won control of Congress in 1994. If this were a parliamentary democracy the government would be Republican. But the presidential veto, a very powerful weapon indeed, provides the White House with its ace in the hole. A 20 point lead in the polls also helps.
There is no doubt, however, that the sentiment of the country favours "welfare reform" - which means getting rid of the present system. If Clinton exercised the veto lie would hand the Republicans a powerful election issue. He avoided that by accepting the bill with changes - some of which he got. Nevertheless, it's a harsh measure for a president to validate, harsh on the children of welfare recipients who are punished for being born poor.
Republicans respond that their aim is to end the "culture of dependency" by cutting off aid to the non working poor. The US government will get rid of welfare by turning it over in "block grants" to the states. The states will make the rules. They can spend or not spend the money as they wish. Their record as protectors of the weak is abysmal.
Other changes in the system are just as startling. There's a five year limit on welfare benefits. Beneficiaries must find work within two years. $56 billion will be cut from aid to legal immigrants, who will be denied health care benefits although in theory they have equal rights with the native born.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the New York Democratic Senator who knows more about welfare reform than anyone in Congress, is disgusted. He told the New York Times: "The cabinet is against the bill. The pollsters are for it. This is a defining event in his presidency."
Congressman John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and legendary civil rights campaigner of the 1960s is outraged. "This bill is mean," he said. "It is base . . . What does it profit a great nation to conquer the world only to lose its soul?"
The Wall Street Journal quoted a US Department of Labour welfare analyst, Roxie Nicholson, who said: "This is an unconscionable act of cruelty to poor Americans."
Will the bill work? In political terms, yes. The underclass that depends on welfare for a living, as well as the cheats and the children, will suffer. They are a small minority, and it won't matter to the general population whether they go to bed hungry or not. They can always turn to crime.
They have no lobby to guarantee their interests, such as the lobbies of big business that cover Capitol Hill and the halls of Congress, drafting bills that go through Congress often as they write them - word for word.