Something Less Than the Millennium

Interviewed by TIME Washington Bureau Chief Hugh Sidey and Correspondent Simmons Fentress, HEW Secretary Joseph Califano talked of past and present attempts to deal with the nation's enduring problem of poverty.

Q. About ten years ago, as the architect of much of the Great Society, you spoke about eradicating poverty and bringing the millennium to this country. Why didn't those masses of bills do the job?

A. We did bring about 11 million or 12 million people out of poverty between 1965 and 1969. It didn't bring any millennium, but it brought a lot of improvement. In the '60s I had a much greater sense that we could craft from Washington what people should do, that we couldn't trust the states because they would not take care of black people or poor people.

That has changed to a large degree in two respects. One, I no longer think I am smart enough or Washington is smart enough to tell most of the states in this country what to do. We have to give them more flexibility. Second, there is significantly less discrimination than in the '60s.

Q. In the old days in the White House, you were worried that you weren't getting proper evaluation on programs once they were passed. Are you going to do any better now?

A. We have tightened up in two ways. We are building a strong inspector-general operation in HEW, in part to measure the delivery of social services. I have also reorganized the regional offices of HEW to make one of the major functions of the top regional person the evaluation of the delivery of programs.

Q. How much poverty will the new welfare program be able to eliminate?

A. I think there is a limit to the extent to which we are able to redistribute wealth. The biggest difference between today and the '60s is that then we had more and more money to spend because real income was still rising. Today there isn't any money coming from some kind of economic surplus or bonus. When you want to do something new, you have to take from something--whether it is more taxes from people or money from other programs. But we should have fewer poor people in this country. There is no question about that.

Q. President Nixon could not get his Family Assistance Plan through Congress. What makes you think Congress will buy your welfare program?

A. I have written to every Congressman, and I have talked to scores of Congressmen and Senators, as well as 20 Governors. I have said that welfare is the Middle East of U.S. politics. It is the most complicated political and economic problem I have ever dealt with. But the present system is so fraught with fraud and errors and antifamily incentives that we have a chance of moving on it.

Q. Some critics claim that we have produced a class of people who are unable to achieve skills or support themselves. Can your program offer much to this group?

A. I think it can. I can't believe anybody wants to be poor. I really don't believe people want to make a living at crime. We can't turn everybody into lawyers or doctors or physicists, but we can certainly get people to do all kinds of tasks as long as they are dignified and satisfying.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.