Even as President Clinton brags about getting 1.4 million Americans off welfare, his administration is gutting the very welfare reform that accomplished this amazing feat.

That’s right. Only a year after reluctantly signing the first serious reform of America’s welfare system - a reform crafted by congressional conservatives - the Clinton White House has stampeded Congress into sabotaging it.

Make no mistake: The budget deal just passed by Congress and signed by the president represents the most decisive liberal victory in welfare policy in 30 years. It overturns not only last year’s welfare reform successes, but also all the conservative gains on the issue of workfare since 1981, and re-creates the liberal status quo Americans have correctly diagnosed as counterproductive.

The key to reducing welfare dependency and increasing self-sufficiency is to require welfare recipients to perform community service work (such as cleaning parks) in exchange for the welfare benefits they already receive. This is called “workfare.”

Once welfare recipients are no longer guaranteed a free income from welfare, but must earn their benefits by performing community service work, the vast majority will quickly leave welfare and take private-sector jobs. States following this strategy such as Wisconsin and Wyoming have reduced their welfare caseloads by 30 percent to 50 percent in the last year alone.

Liberals thus view workfare as a serious threat to the growth of the welfare industry. President Clinton has responded to this threat by outlawing workfare behind the scenes and praising its success in public.

In May, with little fanfare, the administration issued regulations that prohibited states from operating normal workfare programs. Instead, if states wish to make welfare recipients work, they must hire them into public-sector jobs with government- or union-scale wages.

This opens a host of troubles for states wishing to operate simple, straightforward workfare. These “jobs” will be subject to 25 separate federal labor laws which, among other things, guarantee that welfare recipients will be covered by standard government personnel rules on hiring, firing and discipline and will be provided with retirement benefits and unemployment insurance. In addition, many welfare recipients will automatically become members of public-sector unions.

The effects of Clinton’s regulations are devastating. For example, if New York City wished to have welfare recipients help clean the public schools, the city would be forced to pay the recipients $20 per hour. Since the city obviously can’t afford this, the bottom line is simple: No welfare recipients will be required to work. Workfare is effectively shut down. The same is true across the country.

So far, the Republican Congress has failed to seriously challenge Clinton’s assault on workfare. Congress did include provisions partially overturning his anti-work regulations in last month’s Budget Reconciliation Act. But these were quickly dropped when Clinton threatened to veto the bill. Thus far, Congress has completely capitulated to the White House’s demolition of last year’s welfare reform law.

Why does the Clinton administration wish to abolish the very workfare programs that have proven to be most successful in reducing dependence? Because workfare presents welfare recipients with a choice liberals feel is unfair: Work for benefits or get a real job. Liberals believe welfare recipients are the victims of social injustice. To make them work only exacerbates that injustice. Thus, they have opposed realistic work programs for nearly 30 years.

But, in reality, it is dependence, not work, that is harmful to the recipient of welfare. The very workfare programs that President Clinton seeks to outlaw are critical to building a spirit of self-sufficiency that benefits the recipient, the taxpayers, and society as a whole.

Meanwhile, this year, welfare spending will hit $412 billion, or 5 percent of the total U.S. economy. And by 2002, welfare spending will reach $532 billion. In the next decade, the United States will spend $5 trillion on welfare, or roughly $50,000 for each taxpaying household.

The Clinton administration’s regulations redefining workfare are a clear violation of both the letter and the intent of last year’s popular welfare legislation. The American people don’t understand what has happened yet. But when they do, I’m not sure who they will be most angry with: the president, who cynically gutted welfare reform even as he was praising it; or lawmakers in Congress, who allowed him to do it.

Congressional leaders should enact legislation that clarifies the meaning of “workfare” and restore welfare reform before it’s too late.

xxxx?