by Peggy….
Here is what’s happening on the other side of the country. Sound familiar?
Governor Requires Food Stamp Recipients to Work 6 Hours a Week, This Happens Immediately After:
“Food stamp recipients in Maine got a rude awakening when Gov. Paul LePage decided to impose a three-month limit on benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents (Abawds).
Now, before all the raging liberals out there start throwing a hissy fit and talking about how much conservatives hate the poor and all that bleeding heart rhetoric, this limit is only enforced if the “Abawds” refuse to get a job working 20 hours a week, take job training, or volunteer six hours a week.
Guess what happened when this rule was enforced?
Nearly 80 percent of people on welfare were cut off the program because they refused to get a job or volunteer to work six hours a week.
Six hours a week was deemed too strenuous to work in order to receive free benefits.
Unbelievable isn’t it?”
A very similar situation happened back in 1997 after the Republican controlled Congress and president Clinton singed into law The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).
I’ve shared this information before so I won’t bore everyone with repeating it. But, basically, every community college in the US geared up by spending hundreds of thousand of dollars hiring a administrator, instructors, counselors, support staff, furnished offices and bought supplies.
Projected mandatory enrollment four our campus alone was 1,200 students. Actual enrollment was about 50 students. We were told the students did not want to fulfill the requirements to receive their welfare checks.
Since contracts had been signed with the administrator and faculty the program continued for those 50 students for less than two years when the duties and responsibilities were reassigned to other contract staff.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
1996 Welfare Reform Bill — Just the Facts:
“President Bill Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform bill put forward by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole. Then just before the Democratic Convention he signed a third version. Some liberals were upset. Conservatives continued to sell the line that Clinton did not believe in welfare reform.
Conservative and moderate democrats argued that Clinton stood fast against extreme welfare reforms before signing the best compromise he could extract from Gingrich/Dole.
Just what are the differences between what Clinton vetoed and what he signed, and what were the compromises on which the GOP Congress refused to budge. Here are some facts from the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.”
http://nwcitizen.com/oldsite/usa/welfare-reform.html
And then Obama changed the law and we ended up back in the same mess again prior to 1996.
Obama’s End Run on Welfare Reform, Part One: Understanding Workfare:
“TANF Work Requirements
In 1996, Congress enacted welfare reform through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This law replaced AFDC with TANF. At the core of the TANF program were the work participation requirements in Section 407 of the act.
The current controversy springs from the Obama Administration’s plan to waive all of Section 407, which establishes a workfare system with three core elements:
1.Around 30 percent to 40 percent of the “work-eligible” adult TANF caseload is required to engage in work activities.
2.Work activities are defined very broadly and include unsubsidized employment; subsidized employment; on-the-job training; up to 12 months of vocational education; community service work; job search (for up to six weeks) and job readiness training; high school or GED education for recipients under age 20; and high school or GED education for those 20 or over 20 if combined with other listed activities.
3.Individuals are required to engage in activities for 20 hours per week if a parent has a child under age six in the home and for 30 hours per week if all children are over six.
This TANF workfare framework is simple and quite flexible. It allows states a wide range of choices in fulfilling their participation standards. The TANF work requirements are a compassionate aspect of welfare reform. For example, work requirements are more lenient than time limits. With a work requirement, the recipient continues to receive aid as long as he behaves in a constructive manner.
Section 407 also contains a second performance measure called “caseload reduction,” which is used in conjunction with the three-part mandatory work requirements. Caseload reduction performance standards will be discussed below.
The Leniency of TANF Work Requirements:
The TANF work participation standards are quite lenient. For example, in March 2011, 1.9 million families were receiving TANF cash benefits. As Chart 1 shows, some 42 percent were headed by adults who themselves did not receive TANF benefits and were therefore exempt from federal work requirements. These families are most commonly headed by the child’s grandmother or aunt. In other cases, the adult may have been a disabled Social Security recipient or a legal or illegal immigrant parent who does not personally receive TANF aid.
Work Activity in TANF Caseload:
The remaining 58 percent of TANF families contained one or more work-eligible adults. However, half of these work-eligible adults were completely idle. They performed no “work activity” at all, either activities that are “countable” under federal law or those that are not. As Chart 1 shows, cases with work-eligible adult recipients who were completely idle represented roughly one-third of the total caseload. These individuals received a welfare check while sitting at home doing nothing.
Another 14 percent of TANF families had a work-eligible adult who performed some activity that did not fully meet the federal standards because the number of hours of activity was insufficient or the activity was not included in the federal standards. A final 14 percent of cases (31 percent of work-eligible adults) performed enough work activity to meet federal standards.
In reality, too little work is performed in the TANF program. This is not a byproduct of the recession; it has been a constant feature of TANF for many years. It is difficult to understand why anyone would want to weaken these already overly lenient work standards.[7]”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/obamas-end-run-on-welfare-reform-part-one-understanding-workfare
As the article about Maine’s six hours a week volunteering requirement stated, if spread out over five days is only a hour and half a day. Any able bodied person should be willing to get off of their butts and give an hour and a half of their time for a welfare check provided by those who chose to go out and work every day.
More from the above link validates the writer of this 2012 article’s projections were accurate.
“Conclusion
The TANF work requirements were the main driving force behind the success of welfare reform. These rules require 30 percent to 40 percent of the able-bodied TANF caseload to engage in any of 12 different work activities for 20 hours to 30 hours per week.
Although the TANF work requirements are often described as moving people “from welfare to work,” this term is somewhat misleading. Vigorous work requirements substantially reduce unnecessary new entrances into the welfare system and promote exits from the rolls. The decline in unnecessary new enrollments was critical to the success of welfare reform.
Work requirements are a compassionate aspect of welfare reform. For example, work requirements are more lenient than time limits. With a work requirement, aid continues as long as the recipient behaves in a constructive manner. Regrettably, the current TANF work requirements are far too lenient. At present, half of the work-eligible TANF recipients receive checks while doing nothing. They are completely idle on the rolls. This is not a byproduct of the recession; it has been a constant feature of TANF for many years.
The left wing of the Democratic Party opposed welfare reform in 1996. In the years since then, it has repeatedly sought to eliminate federal work requirements. What the left was unable to accomplish through legislation, the Obama Administration is now attempting to implement through backdoor bureaucratic action.
The second part of this paper series will explain the substantial changes that the Obama Administration plans for the TANF work requirements. The Administration has clearly stated that it will weaken the law’s work rules by lowering the participation rates, exempting more TANF recipients from work, and broadening the law’s definitions of work.
Moreover, the HHS plans to allow states to waive compliance with the legislative work rules entirely, replacing them with alternative systems based on “universal engagement,” “employment outcomes,” or other unspecified designs. This will almost certainly mean eliminating meaningful federal work participation requirements for many TANF recipients. The result will be a massive setback for the successful welfare reform of 1996.”
The Republican Gov. of Kansas just signed a similar law. Hope Senator Nielson tries to do the same here if he and Assemblyman Gallagher aren’t already working on it.
New Kansas rules limit spending of welfare benefits:
“Much of the new Kansas law codifies administrative policies enacted after Brownback took office in January 2011, so they’ll be harder to undo later.
They include a requirement that cash assistance recipients work at least 20 hours a week, be looking for work or enroll in job training. The new law also includes a much-criticized provision shortening the lifetime cap on cash assistance to 36 months from 48 months, although the state Department for Children and Families said recipients rarely bump up against the lower limit.
The number of cash assistance recipients in Kansas has dropped 63 percent since Brownback took office, to about 14,700 in February. Brownback said the decline confirms the success of his policies, but critics note that U.S. Census Bureau figures show the state’s child poverty rate remaining at about 19 percent through 2013.
Brownback said his state’s list of prohibited cash-assistance uses has become a way for the left to argue against welfare-to-work policies.
“I think you’re seeing the left trying to pillory this,” Brownback said. “They’re just trying to poke fun at it, when it’s not what the debate is really about.”
http://www.kctv5.com/story/28821290/gov-brownback-signs-kansas-welfare-reform-bill#ixzz3XVXXvfKC
The solution is very simple. If you want to end welfare as we know confiscate 100% of income from Chris, Libster and all other registered DemoNcrats to fund this ridiculousness.
“Nearly 80 percent of people on welfare were cut off the program because they refused to get a job or volunteer to work six hours a week.”
This did seem impossible to believe, but that’s possibly just due to the phrasing. The article makes it clear later that it wasn’t 80% of “people on welfare” who were cut, it was 80% of Abawds (able bodied adults without dependents) on welfare. Still, that does make it sound like a lot of people were mooching off the system without contributing anything.
But if we look at the actual numbers, it doesn’t seem like this was as big of a problem as the Young Conservatives made it out to be.
According to Young Conservatives (citing NYT), prior to the new rule the number of Abawds (side note: fun word, potential band name?) was about 12,000. Now it’s 2,530. That’s a big difference: 9,470 able bodied adults without dependents who were not willing (or unable, but let’s assume the Young Conservatives are right and they were just lazy) to work or volunteer for food stamps.
But wait. According to USDA, the total number of Mainers on food stamps in fiscal year 2014 was 230,536.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
With that information we can determine what percentage of people on food stamps are made up of these lazy Abawds who refuse to work or volunteer (again, assuming these opportunities were available to them).
9470 divided by 230,536 = 0.041078 = 4.11%
So just over 4% of food stamp recipients were Awbads who chose not to participate (or couldn’t find) in work, job training, or volunteer work.
That doesn’t seem like a whole lot to me; certainly not enough to support the “culture of entitlement” rhetoric coming from the right.
I’m not saying I oppose rules like this one, though I’d like to make sure that job training programs are available before I’d support legislation like this in California. But it doesn’t seem to reduce welfare usage by very much–and the reason for that is that the people it targets for cuts just don’t make up a large portion of welfare recipients. In Maine, prior to this rule, 95% of food stamp recipients were not able-bodied adults without dependents. Now Abawds make up only a little more than 1% of all food stamp recipients. That could be seen as progress–provided that the Abawds who were cut off truly don’t need the help. But this seems like an assumption we can’t necessarily make just given the numbers in front of us.
Instead of finding ways to kick this small percentage of people off of food stamps, I’d rather we focus our efforts on figuring out why so many are in need in the first place.
Once more what someone is doing to move “abawds” away from Government dependence and a chance to save tax dollars is met with the suggestion of even more Government largest. Always the answer isn’t it
No recognition or acknowledgement that there was a program in place that shows we can reduce welfare ranks by requesting some effort on the part of these people who march to the music of a band called Abawds,(Always Begging And Without Dependency Shame, this might be a better definition of that acronym) Instead just another suggestion by an spend spend spend liberal mindset to expand Government using any dollars saved through ideas or programs that cut back on wasted spending by stopping the current misuse of those TAX dollars.
Why are liberals so hostile toward people who successfully find improvement through change of the burgeoning problem of welfare waste, especially when its not their Liberal candidate?
Again, this is another great opportunity for them to feel morally superior. They can feel like good people because they want to give money to the poor — granted, not their money,(a Good suggestion by Bob) but rich people’s money. The rich have so much and the poor have so little, so why shouldn’t liberals take it from them and then pat themselves on the back for their compassion?
Peggy’s noting that in 1997 GOP lead Congress and a Liberal President can and did make change, but in doing so they worked together to make it happen, my how times have changed and the spirit of working for the people is nothing but another broken campaign promise.
In the Clinton admin, working became a requirement for receiving welfare. That little item was “waived” by Obumble early in his first term.
No wonder the welfare rolls have mushroomed!
Harold and J. Soden, thank you for getting the point of my comment.
We know how to get people off of welfare, but we lack legislators and leaders to either make it happen or when it does to enforce it on both the state and federal level.
Gingrich and Dole forced Clinton back in 1996 to sign the bill into law after he vetoed it twice before. And Obama waved his magic pen and overturned a viable and working law that was improving the lives of those who could work, but didn’t want to for whatever reason. This law did not affect those who were disabled or mom’s with a child under five years old.
Chris on the other hand wants to continue talking to death why these people are on welfare. (Chris: “I’d rather we focus our efforts on figuring out why so many are in need in the first place.”) We know why. 1.) We know the economy is still struggling and there aren’t enough jobs being created to get these people back to work. 2.) The democrats want these people on welfare so come election day they will gain their votes to keep them in office and the “free” check coming every month. 3.) Keeping people uninformed, dependent and uneducated is the only way the progressive movement, which morphed out of the old communist movement, will continue the agenda of transforming America into a European style of governance where the class system keeps the average citizen down while supporting through high taxes the life-style of the elites. We see this with the Obamas, Gore and the Clintons.
The American dream of being able to reach the very top of the salary scale has now been replaced with everyone should strive to be a member of the middle class, the average/medium life-style should be all anyone should want, not more. More means you didn’t work for it, but took it from someone else unless you’re a member of the exclusive progressive elite club. Members of that club are entitled to their life-style and everyone else should be thankful for them and grateful for their allowing us to have what they allow us to have.
Those of us who want our country back want the American dream back, so no one puts a ceiling on how far we can go and everyone will want to earn their own way and not be so comfortable in a life that not working is a better option than working.
Yep, Obama’s rule by executive fiat continues to turn around law.
Off topic —
The Frederick Douglass Republican Movement —
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx73XyiFyls&feature=youtu.be
This is the future progressive liberals want for America.
Welfare Queen Wants Tax Payers to Pick Up the Tab For ‘Fairy Tale’ Wedding and Honeymoon:
http://www.youngcons.com/welfare-queen-wants-tax-payers-to-pick-up-the-tab-for-fairy-tale-wedding-and-honeymoon/
Peggy: “Gingrich and Dole forced Clinton back in 1996 to sign the bill into law after he vetoed it twice before. And Obama waved his magic pen and overturned a viable and working law that was improving the lives of those who could work, but didn’t want to for whatever reason.”
Obama did not “overturn” the law. He granted waivers to states that showed they were meeting the same goals as the previous work requirements, just in different ways. This policy allowed states greater flexibility in meeting federal requirements, something conservatives usually claim to support.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/fact-check-does-obama-want-to-gut-welfare-reform/
“3.) Keeping people uninformed, dependent and uneducated is the only way the progressive movement, which morphed out of the old communist movement, will continue the agenda”
On what basis can you claim that progressives want to keep people “uneducated?” Progressives are the ones who generally favor more funding for education and more financial aid for college. I have been insulted on this very blog for using government subsidies to get a college education.
“of transforming America into a European style of governance where the class system keeps the average citizen down while supporting through high taxes the life-style of the elites.”
I’m sorry, but your understanding of the class system in Europian countries is simply laughable.
In reality, most European countries have greater social mobility than the U.S., while at the same time having more redistributive policies. This is a proven fact.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/09/news/economy/america-economic-mobility/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/19/steven-rattner/it-easier-obtain-american-dream-europe/
The notion that progressive or “European style policies” results in a more stratified class structure and keeps people from being economically mobile is completely lacking in any factual basis.
Peggy: “This is the future progressive liberals want for America.
Welfare Queen Wants Tax Payers to Pick Up the Tab For ‘Fairy Tale’ Wedding and Honeymoon:”
Oh, for crying out loud. Really? You really think this crazy woman is representative of anyone but herself? You have that low of an opinion of half the country that disagrees with you politically, that you think that is the future we want for America?
Why is this news? Why is anyone paying attention to what this crazy lady wants? Has any politician in the UK or American or anywhere else for that matter called for taxpayer funded fantasy weddings? No? Then why is the Daily Mail and Young Conservatives acting as if this story matters? As is anyone should care about this random nobody’s ridiculous demands that will never come true?
Because they’re sensationalist tabloids designed to drum up fear and moral superiority, that’s why. Yes, some “welfare queens” like that lady do exist, but as statistically proven by doing the math from your earlier Young Cons article, they are few and far between (non-working Abawds made up only 5% of food stamp recipients in Maine prior to the new rule). Articles like that are meant to perpetuate resentment and outrage toward those lazy, greedy poors while distracting us from the real societal problems. “Hide yo’ kids, hide yo’ wives, hide yo’ husbands, ‘cuz they be redistributing errthing out here.” Disgusting.
Great new video Pie. I learned of this group a year or two ago and the strong group they have in Florida. Nice to see their movement is growing by reaching out to all races.
Also, noted their four points align with Rand Paul’s.
There are more numbers to consider here. California is about 12% of the national population, but we support over 30% of the national welfare burden. I’ve quoted this before, as has Jack, and I actually researched the numbers to make sure it was true.
The question now is, why does CA have to shoulder such a huge burden of America’s poor while other states seem to be pushing the burden onto us? Other states have tough restrictions on welfare, even states run by democrat majorities like us (Oregon comes to mind). It’s almost as if they know that making it hard to receive benefits there will push more of the recipients here?
As more and more recipients come here, what other social problems do they bring with them? Increased crime? Lowered school scores?
Will someone tell me why CA should have to shoulder so much more of this burden than other states?
Re #14 Steve: “The question now is, why does CA have to shoulder such a huge burden of America’s poor while other states seem to be pushing the burden onto us?”
Because lunatics like Chris run this state. They invite the welfare burden as a means to hold onto political power by creating a government dependent class of voters.
Democrats like to deny this, but I have decades of of anecdotal evidence from welfare recipients who vote to keep themselves on the dole in sunny California. In fact, many think it is hilarious and the rest think they deserve to be granted a living.
My solution is to take all of those illegals and send them to The Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Nob Hill, Hillsborough, Mill Valley, any place where the income level is high enough to pay for their care and education.
They’re the ones who supported Obama, let them pick up the tab instead of taxing us who want our laws enforced.
Did you hear George Lucas is even going to build “affordable” housing in his million dollar neighborhood.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3042347/George-Lucas-unveils-plans-build-biggest-affordable-housing-complex-county-s-irked-neighbors-it.html
Peggy, your article has brought to light the difference in thinking between Liberals and Conservatives, in so much as the current Liberal unchecked indulgence in supporting people of the Abawds statis.
SO what could happen if proper welfare aid and requirements were to be instigated in a bipartisan manor, how much would that 5% figure(if universal to the national outlay)result in Tax payer savings, how much would say just those 5% of ABAWDS working relieve those exploded welfare roles. Those numbers would be significant in taxes saved as well as creating additional taxes paid in.
In the attached article by Steven Moore I feel there are some of those questions addressed.
“Welfare In America: A $1 Trillion Tab And Rising
By Stephen Moore
Republicans in Congress are being accused of fighting a “war on the war on poverty,” in part because of a tiny cut in the food stamps program last week. Democrats charge that these “cuts” will take food from the mouths of hungry children, and they claim this is an example of how Congress has shred the safety net for the poor.
Never mind that this is the food aid program that has tripled in cost and doubled in participation in just the last decade. Even during the economic recovery, the number of recipients — one in seven Americans — continues to grow.
Federal budget data confirm that rising enrollment and cost is the real untold story of almost all welfare programs in America today.
Just 18 years ago Republicans and Clinton Democrats joined together to pass landmark legislation to “end welfare as we know it.” But today, welfare has been redesigned and expanded, not reformed.
The traditional cash welfare program, once known as AFDC, has shrunk — thanks in part to strict work requirements. But the new-age welfare is a conglomeration of dozens of income-support programs — some aren’t even labeled welfare — as generous and costly as ever.
In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays on all means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $746 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
But this doesn’t include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies: unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one’s income level, so are not considered anti-poverty programs. That’s another $250 billion a year. All told, federal income transfer programs (not including Social Security and Medicare) have hit $1 trillion.
Adding state spending, the Senate Budget Committee found another $257 billion spent each year. The welfare state is now larger than the GDP of 175 of the 190 wealthiest countries.
Astoundingly, if all this spending were simply sent in the form of a check to every household in America living below the poverty level, we could raise each of these family’s incomes not just above the poverty line, but double that level, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Every poor family of four could have a cash income of $44,000 a year — which in most countries would be princely.
Most Americans probably have no idea how expansive the welfare state is. That’s because the cost is disguised by more than 80 separate means-tested programs counted by the CRS, including cash benefits, health care, social services, food, child care, training, and housing and utility subsidies. They often have overlapping and uncoordinated missions. This explains the vast duplication of effort, with at least 12 programs offering food and nutrition, 18 offering housing assistance, nine offering vocational training, and so on.
In all, just over 100 million Americans now get some form of welfare-based government benefit. This does not include Medicare or Social Security. Obama’s economics team thinks the more the better, because these are programs that “stimulate” the economy.
Oh, and by the way: These numbers do not include the ObamaCare expansion of Medicaid, which could add 20 million to the rolls over time. Obama boasts of 5 million more Americans now being eligible for Medicaid under ObamaCare, as if that’s an applause line.
Means-tested cash, food and housing aid are up 50% in cost in 1996, when Bill Clinton signed the reform law that was supposed to “end welfare as we know it.” By 2016, according to Senate Budget Committee ranking Republican Jeff Sessions, the Obama welfare budget will rise more than 30% to $1.374 trillion.
Does this welfare net discourage work and encourage dependency? Work is required for few of the 80 benefit programs, except some cash and food aid programs and the earned income tax credit. This may explain why more than half of families in poverty don’t have anyone working.
Work, job training or education should be a bare minimum federal requirement as part of the social contract for receiving most forms of government assistance. But the left opposed this in the food stamps debate.
Obama’s economic legacy is an expanding welfare juggernaut that is trapping millions of Americans in poverty. If there’s a “war on the poor,” this is it.
– Stephen Moore is the chief economist at the Heritage Foundation”
Harold, liberals keep screaming that the, “wealthy pay their fair share.” I’m saying then the rich liberals who keep passing these aid programs should also pay for them. One way to do that would be to move a large percentage of the aid recipients into the rich communities and school districts that can best afford to pay for them. Instead of bussing the 100,000 kids that came across our southern border last year to places like east LA, that have financially strapped communities and school districts and are filled with gangs and high crime, they could just as easily been sent to an affluent community that could afford them and not put the cost on those who can least afford it. Every dollar spent teaching those kids to speak English took away from those who already did.
Stephen Moore’s article makes perfect sense to those who believe in a temporary helping hand safety net. It doesn’t for those who believe in creating a society of dependents who will vote to stay dependent and a system full of federal workers doing duplicate works to stay employed.
If we aren’t at the tipping point of having more in the wagon than pulling it we must be very close.