In Washington, House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks of bold, dramatic changes, many of them aimed at the reform of welfare and other social-services programs. Meanwhile, President Clinton calls for a bipartisan national conference to examine welfare reform.
Here in Maryland, Gov.-elect Parris Glendening admits that money for what might be called the compassion budget will be tight. His priorities will center on a broader agenda of safe communities, good schools and job development, all aimed at helping people take responsibility for their own lives.
As for Maryland legislators, Cas Taylor, speaker of the House of Delegates, sees a clear mandate in the November elections calling for a stronger sense of fiscal, social and personal responsibility. He predicts that a welfare-reform bill much like the one vetoed last session by Governor Schaefer will pass easily.
Clearly, whatever else people are reading into the election returns, politicians across the board are ready to do something -- anything -- to change a welfare system that seems to have lost its way and has surely lost much of its political support.
As they sort through the options, there will be plenty of minefields to negotiate, both politically and practically.
A prime example is the proposal from Speaker Gingrich and others to bring back orphanages for some children of young, unwed, destitute mothers. The suggestion has created a furious debate, much of which skirts around the most important issue -- what to do about mothers who are not prepared to take on the responsibilities of parenthood?
Teen-age girls are often the focus of such discussion, but in fact they are only part of the problem. There are plenty of post-adolescent mothers who, because of drugs or other problems, are equally handicapped in carrying out their maternal responsibilities.
The suggestion of bringing back orphanages sends liberals into RTC apoplectic fits, with ample justification. After all, as many social scientists have pointed out, it was disgust with the problems of orphanages that spurred the reforms that became today's welfare system. And it was the noble impulse to reunite destitute children with their parents that became the underpinning of today's principle of preserving and supporting families.
But rather than getting stuck on the notion of "orphanages," with all the punitive images the word provokes, it's time for liberals and conservatives alike to examine the real problem: the fact that the current system of welfare payments too often fails to ensure that the needs of children are met, even on a minimal level. Another fact: Punishing their mothers by withdrawing support only worsens the social problems, at least in the short run.
Once again, a debate that is fundamentally about the welfare of children -- or should be -- is focusing instead on the sins of the parents, making children the pawns in a political tug of war.
Instead of spending their energies denouncing orphanages, liberals should instead acknowledge that the current welfare system does discourage personal responsibility, and encourage a public debate on ways to reverse that insidious effect.
For instance, maybe it's time to discuss proposals for group homes or other ways to teach parenting skills -- not just coping with children, but also nurturing them.
As policy makers come to terms with the expense and bureaucracy involved in creating work programs, they might want to take a different look at "mothers' pensions," as early welfare advocates called it.
Maybe Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the largest welfare program, could be recast as a bargain between taxpayers and the recipients: In exchange for help in providing the necessities of life, taxpayers should expect conscientious parenting. Group homes may be one way to insure that kind of accountability.
One thing we should keep in mind about orphanages is that they aren't cheap. Institutions don't raise children, people do. But parenthood is the most labor-intensive job in the world -- which is why no government can sever the bonds between parents and children without great cost.
That said, it's worth remembering that as grim as they might seem, substitute homes have provided a real oasis for many children. Sure, any child would prefer a warm and loving home to an institution. But in some cases, that's not the choice. Sometimes, children would easily choose the shelter, safety and predictability of a group home over the chaos of an abusive or chaotic family relationship.
The furor over orphanages should not overshadow the seriousness of the real issue: the accountability of parents for the welfare of their kids.
Sara Engram is editorial-page director of The Evening Sun.