Just one month into the Republican quest to reinvent the federal government, the spotlight has been turned to the perennially controversial issue of welfare reform.

Among America's political leaders, the feeling toward changing welfare is nearly unanimous. In the "Contract With America," House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for the dismantling of the New Deal's welfare state. And President Clinton, in a meeting with the National Governor's Association yesterday, stressed the importance of not allowing welfare to become a way of life.

However, as it usually happens with political issues, the methods of reform have become a major sticking point in this debate.

A staff aide for the House Ways and Means Committee said the Contract's Personal Responsibility Act, which concentrates on welfare reform, is currently in hearings and will likely be written up in mid-February.

The general focus behind reform measures has been to reduce the numerous amount of federal programming that goes toward the same cause.

"The idea is to block grant (funds) to the states and then to have the states run the programs," the aide said.

If state governments get a specific amount of funding without requirements of how to use the money, then they can run welfare programs more effectively, she said.

Along with the block grants, Republican legislators have three other main priorities, the aide said. Those include requiring welfare recipients to work, installing a time limit for receiving welfare and cutting off benefits to mothers of illegitimate children.

Although members of both parties have declared their support for reforming welfare, the aide said she believes some provisions will provoke considerable debate. The component concerning unwed mothers and an added measure preventing legal immigrants from receiving benefits are particulary controversial, she said.

While political leaders have proclaimed the need for welfare reform, other people in the academic community question its necessity.

David Ribar, assistant professor of economics, said block grants to states may not be necessary.

"Effectively, the states have the power to do what they want already," Ribar said. State governments are currently responsible for setting the benefit levels and administering their respective welfare programs, he said.

Another questionable aspect of the push for welfare reform, Ribar said, is that many of the current suggestions were already laid out in the Family Support Act of 1988.

That bill, which was signed by former President Reagan, provided for job training, tougher enforcement of child support and work requirements, he said.

"The problem is the states and federal government have never fully funded that reform," Ribar said.

Even though the provisions in the 1988 bill were an apparent solution, Ribar said politicians take a special interest in arguing about welfare.

"It seems like welfare is a nice program to take some potshots on," he said.

Despite the desire for many different groups to argue about welfare, organizations that actually administer the programs are forced to keep silent on the issue.

David Lapan, spokesman for Pennsylvania's Department of Public Welfare, said the organization must stay neutral concerning the proposed reforms.

Regardless of their neutrality, Lapan said people in the department do not remain completely impartial.

"Even throughout the department there's been pretty much an agreement that welfare needs to be reformed," he said.

The general consensus is that there must be a way to create more incentives for people to work and to get off welfare, Lapan said.

However, politicians will be the ultimate decision makers as to the methods of creating those incentives.

"Once a bill becomes a law," Lapan said, "then the Department will enact it."