Finally!!!!

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Michigan is FINALLY taking steps to eliminate life long welfare benefits. The Senate has passed a 48 month LIFELONG cap on welfare. There are also greater restrictions on how welfare monies may be spent and adult "children" will no longer be able to receive benefits through their parents. Looks like the free ride may be over and the hard working people of Michigan will no longer be FORCED to subsidize laziness.


48-month welfare cap clears Senate




Gov. Snyder expected to sign bill that would cut off monthly benefit payments for thousands

Karen Bouffard/ Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Lansing— Michigan will have the strictest welfare limits in the Midwest if legislation passed by the Senate is signed into law.
The Senate on Wednesday put a lifetime cap on recipients of 48 months, a move that would immediately affect about 12,600 families statewide. The cap would be retroactive and cumulative, so families would begin to lose payments averaging $515 a month starting Oct. 1.

Gov. Rick Snyder is expected to sign the legislation into law once it hits his desk.

Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri have five-year limits. Indiana has a 24-month limit, but only for adults; children's benefits have no time cap.

"The purpose of the 48-month limit is to ensure that resources are directed toward families that truly need them," said Amber McCann, spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe. "As the economy in Michigan improves with the legislation that has passed over the course of these first six months, we think that 48 months is an adequate amount of time for people to find employment."

The limits come on top of earlier legislation that cuts state jobless benefits to 20 weeks from 26 and a reduction in the earned income tax credit for the working poor. Medicaid benefits and food stamps have not been reduced.

Phyllis Browne, spokeswoman for House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, said the House will concur with changes in the Senate-approved bills.

"This has been a priority of our caucus since Day One," Browne said.

The Senate acted on the legislation on the lone day it was in session this month, the first of a two-month summer break. The House is in session July 27. Both chambers will have a working day in August as well.

The bill was pushed through by the Republican majority over objections from critics who said it will precipitate a humanitarian crisis as tens of thousands of people — including more than 20,000 children — lose financial support in the midst of a major recession with high unemployment and declining public support for charities.

The Family Independence Program payments are used for housing, utility bills and other essentials.

"This bill is draconian, ****able and unconscionable," Sen. Coleman Young II, D-Detroit, said in a statement. "The fact that we are destroying a social safety net shows we have lost sight of the fundamental purpose of being elected, which is to protect the general welfare.

"We need legislation that promotes job creation, not legislation that takes food away from hungry children."

Democrats voted as a bloc against the legislation, which passed 24-12.

Republicans said Michigan can no longer afford lifetime welfare benefits. The legislation will save the state $77.4 million, according to the Senate Fiscal Agency.

Similar legislation has passed in the House, but the Senate added the Oct. 1 effective date and gave discretion to the state Department of Human Services to exempt some cases during the 2012 fiscal year. Republicans also raised the amount families can earn while receiving benefits.

"The governor believes this move is an important step in helping ensure public assistance is a bridge to family independence while also striking an appropriate balance with exemptions for hardship or incapacity," said Sara Wurfel, Snyder's spokeswoman.

Michigan until recently was one of just two states — Vermont was the other — to have lifetime welfare benefits. The Legislature imposed a 48-month limit in 2007, but many recipients were exempted, including those deemed to be making progress toward getting a job.

The two-bill package extends to all recipients a 48-month limit that now applies only to those eligible to participate in the state's Work First program and who live in an area where the Jobs, Education and Training program is available.

Gilda Jacobs, president and CEO of the Michigan League for Human Services, said communities are not prepared to deal with the thousands who will be left destitute when their benefits are slashed.

"I don't honestly think there are the kind of supports in communities to pick up the slack," she said. "Charitable contributions are down — we don't know what's going to happen to these folks."

Sen. Vincent Gregory, D-Southfield, unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to exempt people who live in counties where unemployment is 25 percent or more higher than the state unemployment rate.

The legislation also would:

Discount $200 plus 50 percent of a family's earnings when determining income eligibility for welfare benefits, allowing families to earn more and still qualify for welfare than under the current law, which discounts $200 plus 20 percent.

Disallow benefits for 19-year-olds who live in a home receiving welfare benefits.

Prohibit spending welfare benefits on lottery tickets, alcohol, tobacco, gambling or other nonessentials.


ttp://www.detnews.com/article/20110714/POLITICS02/107140416/48-month-welfare-cap-clears-Senate
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Good step....but I am reading a lot of loopholes left that the smart welfare bum can squeeze thru...with the help of a sympathitic counsellor...
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
"This bill is draconian, ****able and unconscionable," Sen. Coleman Young II, D-Detroit, said in a statement. "The fact that we are destroying a social safety net shows we have lost sight of the fundamental purpose of being elected, which is to protect the general welfare."

This is one dumb turd! It's PROMOTE general welfare. It's also ENSURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY, which your party seems to ignore, Coleman Jr! You're as big a waste as your daddy was, scum!
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
"This bill is draconian, ****able and unconscionable," Sen. Coleman Young II, D-Detroit, said in a statement. "The fact that we are destroying a social safety net shows we have lost sight of the fundamental purpose of being elected, which is to protect the general welfare."

This is one dumb turd! It's PROMOTE general welfare. It's also ENSURING THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY, which your party seems to ignore, Coleman Jr! You're as big a waste as your daddy was, scum!

Hawk..I too read that statement and thought there was something wrong with it...not being American I did not know why?....now I know....It just sounded wrong...
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Not bad.

I'd have to see the whole thing, but the highlights from the article seem to be responsible and rational and a step in the right direction.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
As much as you are all cheering about this, the problem isn't with any lifetime cap that is needed but rather a restructuring of the entire system from the ground up.

See for those who have been through the system may get what I am saying, the system is run by those case workers who make the decisions and cost the state more money than those who have been on it for much of their lives.

This is nothing more than a feel good bill that doesn't address why someone who should be getting help is ignored while those who through different means has the assets to live on their assets or through others who have well paying jobs. The inequity of the system here in the state is amazing and it has to do with those in the system trying to protect their jobs.

MAYBE synder and others should think about reducing cost through outsourcing the case work, tying it with asset levels that force those who drive them nice new cars to give up those cars first before asking for help.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Hawk..I too read that statement and thought there was something wrong with it...not being American I did not know why?....now I know....It just sounded wrong...

I'll give you a hint - the most destructive leader of any city on earth was his father...

Sen. Coleman Young II, D-Detroit

Anything this guy says is wrong.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
As much as you are all cheering about this, the problem isn't with any lifetime cap that is needed but rather a restructuring of the entire system from the ground up.

See for those who have been through the system may get what I am saying, the system is run by those case workers who make the decisions and cost the state more money than those who have been on it for much of their lives.

This is nothing more than a feel good bill that doesn't address why someone who should be getting help is ignored while those who through different means has the assets to live on their assets or through others who have well paying jobs. The inequity of the system here in the state is amazing and it has to do with those in the system trying to protect their jobs.

MAYBE synder and others should think about reducing cost through outsourcing the case work, tying it with asset levels that force those who drive them nice new cars to give up those cars first before asking for help.

Thats what I meant by loopholes..I am reading too much worker judgement, far too much latitude in it ...not enough NO's...still no accountability... a welfare pro will pick the holes apart...
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
What an excellent plan: pretend everyone on welfare is able to work, there are jobs for them that pay enough to make them self sufficient, and all they need to do is get off their lazy butts and find those jobs. [Assume they have transportation and childcare covered, because there's lots of it available at an affordable cost].
And pretend that only the 'people' are getting a handout from tax monies, because 'corporate welfare' is good for America, yes?
Shall we rewrite the Declaration of Independence: "We, the Corporate Interests"?

Here's the thing: when jobs were available, people worked. And saved. Bought homes they paid for, after working 30 years. Put their kids through college. Retired with enough to get by.
How do we do that, without the jobs that left the country, to add to the profits of the very businesses that you now insist will make it all better?
They haven't been helping [except themselves], why would they change now? :confused:
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
See Cheri, I'm with you to a point.

My wife and I are helping out a few families and one is the mother and sister of a combat vet. I won't get into the specifics whys of their plight but needless to say they got screwed by the system - the same system that is supposed to help them get back on their feet.

Last month, he ex paid up the balance of child support that he ran from - 26k. She got a cryptic letter in the mail informing her that she is cut off of all child support as of July 1. Then the welfare department which is the best in the world, told her that they consider that income that she has and decided to cut her off of her food stamps. Then this week she went to see her case worker and that ***** told her that she is now cut off of welfare because she had a $26k income that they didn't know about. BUT the great thing is she found out this morning that all the money he paid will be applied to the money they gave her as welfare, including the rent and food stamps.

So this little bill to me addresses one problem but not The Problem with the system. If her case worker was effective in any way, she would not be stranded like this but now she is. I don't mind helping out, but for her and others who have similar situations, I can understand the need to use the system to be in a better position to get out of the situation.
 

BillChaffey

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
US Navy
Back in the 70's the late John Lindsey (sp) was Mayor of New York City. It was suggested that some who were on Welfare should work in helping clean the streets of NYC. Mayor Lindsey responded " I would not ask anyone to do such a menial job"


The fact that the city was already paying city workers to clean the streets seemed to have slipped his Honors mind.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I just don't understand how people can believe that what's changed from then [when welfare wasn't a problem] to now [when anyone collecting is assumed to be lazy] is human nature, rather than the corporate attitude.
Yes, people need to work - it's a critical step in Maslow's hierarchy [on human development] and it's a critical role in civilized society - but they need to earn enough to be self sufficient in order for the rest to fall into line.
Getting able bodied folks off welfare is an excellent idea, but telling them to "Just get a job!" isn't, because the jobs don't exist anymore in America.
And we have 'business interests" to thank for that.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I just don't understand how people can believe that what's changed from then [when welfare wasn't a problem] to now [when anyone collecting is assumed to be lazy] is human nature, rather than the corporate attitude.
Yes, people need to work - it's a critical step in Maslow's hierarchy [on human development] and it's a critical role in civilized society - but they need to earn enough to be self sufficient in order for the rest to fall into line.
Getting able bodied folks off welfare is an excellent idea, but telling them to "Just get a job!" isn't, because the jobs don't exist anymore in America.
And we have 'business interests" to thank for that.

Like greg, I agree with you to a certain extent. What you just described above is our culture, and that my friend is another story. If you want to get an idea where it's coming from, just watch O'reilly and his "culture warriors" segment on his show :rolleyes:

All I know is that I'm for weeding out the corruption and inefficiencies that are in these programs in a responsible manner. I'm not sure if this does it in such a way, because I haven't looked at it closer, but if it is, it's a start in the right direction in my opinion.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The idea that people are OWED a living is rather new and does not work. MANY of those people we will lose benefits have been on welfare for their entire adult life. There are generations of welfare rangers in some families.

No, it won't be easy. Who ever said life is easy? Why is it that those who struggle and make it, or at least struggle and break even must provide for those who refuse to do so?

It is the responsibility of the individual to provide for them selves. As long as they are in reasonable health and have normal intelligence they can, and should, be able to provide their OWN income. I know far too many who do it. A "JOB" is NOT the answer. The answer is having the gumption to just "do it".

I am MORE than willing to provide a "safety net" but not a hammock.

This bill is not perfect but it is a start and a step in the right direction.

You can always mow grass. Don't laugh, that is what my yard man does. He and his wife support themselves. They did NOT wait for a "JOB". They now employ some people.

There is ALWAYS a way.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I think this bill is the right thing. But they picked a helluva time to incorporate it. I'm not just saying this because the recipients will have a tough time; but we who are not recipients will be close to the recipients when they lose their benefits. So, if cousin Jamima (Jolene) (Selena) loses the welfare to support her 12 babies and her cousin DeJackal (Joe Jim Bob) (Jesus)'s crack habit, then we will be seeing a rise in crime from DeJackal (Joe Jim Bob) (Jesus). We don't need that! Yeah, I have two dogs. One is a yapper, and the other never met a stranger (I know... I love wolfhounds! :) ). I don't like, nor would I ever get, an attack dog... especially pit bulls.

My point is, the state made this mess to begin with. Now, all of a sudden, they're going to pull the plug with no plan in site? Maybe they have a plan for THEIR neighborhoods. To me, this is a worse idea than letting the loonies out of the hospitals.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well Layout, the idea came from the mentality that the union created and perpetrated by people like Lewis and Reuther. A rather old thing.

BUT the bill doesn't start to address the real issue, the actual cost of these programs and is there to appease some of snyders supporters.

The cost of running them outstrips the abuse by a large margin.

If he wanted to do some good, go after the tax abatements that puts more of a burden on the people paying the property taxes to make up the difference. Or go after the cities that refuse to follow the law that make it hard for home owners who housing value has gone down by asking for a fair adjustment of their taxes. How about the abuse of those within the state legislator with all these staff members who are not needed or better yet, where is his proposal for a part time non-paid legislator?

Here are a few other things that would make a better impact -

getting rid of state owned vehicles except those for police work and other critical jobs.

getting rid of departments and offices which serve no purpose, I think that Levins son's office is still open and has 15 people in it.

getting the money back from our former governor for the first man's office and staff. this symbolic move would be great for those who felt the $500k spent on the staff was a wast of money.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I think this bill is the right thing. But they picked a helluva time to incorporate it. I'm not just saying this because the recipients will have a tough time; but we who are not recipients will be close to the recipients when they lose their benefits. So, if cousin Jamima (Jolene) (Selena) loses the welfare to support her 12 babies and her cousin DeJackal (Joe Jim Bob) (Jesus)'s crack habit, then we will be seeing a rise in crime from DeJackal (Joe Jim Bob) (Jesus). We don't need that! Yeah, I have two dogs. One is a yapper, and the other never met a stranger (I know... I love wolfhounds! :) ). I don't like, nor would I ever get, an attack dog... especially pit bulls.

Hawk: you need some updating on those cultural assumptions, ok? Seriously: what do you actually KNOW about who is collecting welfare today, and why? I think the answers would surprise you - if you can get out of your 'comfort zone' long enough to look for them.

My point is, the state made this mess to begin with. Now, all of a sudden, they're going to pull the plug with no plan in site? Maybe they have a plan for THEIR neighborhoods. To me, this is a worse idea than letting the loonies out of the hospitals.

Precisely. The safety net exists for the benefit of society in general, not just the individuals who need it. That there are far more of them is because of a major attitude shift - but whose? Does it seem logical to you that people [in general] have become less responsible, lost the work ethic that's been part of America for over 2oo years?
Or does it seem more credible that profit & greed have been running the show for awhile, aided by corrupt and/or self serving politicians? :confused:
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Witness: I'm totally in favor of eliminating corruption and inefficiency, personal, corporate, and governmental. It should be an integral part of EVERY process.
But I can't watch O'Reilly: don't got a tv. :D
 
Top