The polls are close. As Now. 3 approaches, L. Scott Harshbarger '64 and Acting Governor A. Paul Cellucci remain locked in a tight battle for governor. Although their positions are similar on many issues, they have come to verbal blows over the question of how to treat welfare recipients. Harshbarger calls Cellucci's stance "anti-child, anti-woman;" Cellucci accuses Harshbarger of being far too soft on welfare moms and far too liberal with state money. Since they offer very different agendas around this issue, the outcome of this election may have a direct effect on many of Massachusetts's 62,000 families who receive welfare benefits.

Two years ago, the Massachusetts legislature passed a welfare reform bill designed to tighten requirements and stop people from taking advantage of the system. In particular, the bill's supporters sought to crack down on the common welfare stereotype: the lazy mother who sits at home and watches the soaps, relying on welfare--on taxpayer dollars!--to support her for life.

The legislature implemented changes to half-encourage, half-push recipients into the work-force. With a few exceptions, the bill requires welfare recipients to work-force. With a few exceptions, the bill requires welfare recipients to work or volunteer for 20 hours a week, and it limits welfare aid to two years per family. Starting this December, thousands of families will reach their time limits and stop getting welfare.

When these time limits hit, Massachusetts will see increased suffering among its poor parents and children. Without their welfare benefits, many parents will not be able to provide their children with the basic necessities of food and shelter. Although lots of parents will find jobs--and lots already have--not all are equipped to do so. Many lack education or English skills; some have chronically ill children that need extra care; still others are recovering from domestic violence situations.

The two candidates for governor favor different policies regarding these families. Harshbarger wants case-by-case exemptions from the time limits for certain families, including cases when the recipients are enrolled in educational programs or recovering from domestic violence situations. This continued support would help keep afloat some families currently incapable of sustaining themselves and allow parents to gain the education degrees they need in order to find suitable jobs.

Cellucci, on the other hand, wants to minimize time-limit exceptions for families that are ill-equipped to move into the workplace. These families may indeed have problems, but he thinks that the state should no longer subsidize them. Whether he has plans to deal with hunger and housing crises for poor children--crises that would result from unqualified enforcement of the welfare reform time limits--is an entirely different question.

The unqualified enforcement of the time limits is not the only questionable aspect of welfare reform. Harshbarger argues that the new work requirements can hurt motivated mothers and their children. He wants women on welfare who are engaged in substantial education programs--such as attending a community college--to be exempt from the 20-hour work requirement. Cellucci thinks that's far too soft. If women on welfare want to go to college, they can do that in addition working.

But can they? Imagine going to college while raising one or more children. On top of that, add all the stresses of poverty: the constant scrounge for cheap food; the total reliance on public transportation; the continual search for inexpensive clothing, child care and housing. Then add welfare's new requirement that you work 20 hours a week. It's tough. Only the most tenacious supermoms can meet all these demands.

As a result, many women must abandon their goals of completing a GED program or attending college. But education is the key to long-term financial stability in Massachusetts. Without a good degree, family heads are condemned to poverty-line jobs forever. And a minimum wage job in Boston does not cover the costs of living for a family, especially given the shortage of affordable housing.

The government should be supporting these women who are striving for upward mobility, not putting obstacles in their way. By allowing them time to develop the skills for long-term financial independence, it would help insure that they and their children will have more stable lives. And it would keep a family from being a long-term drag on the state budget. Harshbarger's call for work requirement exemptions for women enrolled in serious educational programs is both caring and sensible.

There is an old saying that if you give a family a fist, you feed them for a day. If you teach them how to fish, you feed them for life. Paul Cellucci, it seems, would prefer to do neither.

Jean W. Galbraith '99 is a social studies concentrator in Mather House.