A new 60-month limit on eligibility for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits adds an element of urgency to welfare reform in Maine.
The benefits cap has triggered a reduction of more than 3,000 households from Maine’s TANF caseload since January. It is expected to yield $2.5 million in state biennial budget savings.
The governmental implications of that change will likely necessitate some adaptation of the General Assistance program, for which state government and municipalities share costs. A work group continues to study ways to improve General Assistance and will report its findings to the next Legislature.
Portland’s General Assistance administrators have already paid more than $26,700 to families who lost TANF benefits since May, according to Nicole Clegg, the city’s communications director. Other municipalities report similar jumps in General Assistance applications from households that no longer qualify for TANF.
As they consider revamping General Assistance, lawmakers must make it a priority to ensure that the responsibility for supporting families who require assistance after their TANF benefits expire does not simply shift the cost to property taxpayers.
The effect on the lives of families whose eligibility expires will be more difficult to measure than a cost transfer from state to municipal ledgers. The language of welfare programs — with terms such as “caseloads,” “assistance units,” “deprivation factors” and “poverty guidelines” — dehumanizes the people who receive public assistance.
That terminology masks the fact that TANF caseloads are made up primarily of parents and children. Some are domestic violence survivors. Some are disabled. Those conditions won’t change after 60 months.
Part of the ongoing effort to reform welfare must involve removing the stigma that the TANF work requirement should somehow be a punitive process. The 60-month eligibility limit provides an opportunity to encourage a shift in that mindset.
A 2010 Maine Equal Justice Partners survey of TANF recipients shows that 97 percent had work experience. The survey indicates that motivation is not the problem for the majority of TANF recipients. Obstacles to entering the workforce, such as lack of training and affordable child care, are. With the 60-month eligibility limit in place, state government needs to implement policies that emphasize more rapid removal of those barriers.
The 60-month limit puts the onus not just on TANF recipients to set a reasonable timeline for their “journey to independence,” as Dale Denno, director of the Maine office of family independence, described the welfare-to-work process, but also on the state to offer programs that more effectively help people get off welfare for good.
Forcing TANF recipients to fulfill work requirements in the name of instilling a work ethic represents a poor use of state resources. Instead, as Denno noted in pursuing greater collaboration with the Maine Department of Labor, a more intentional, unified approach that relies on data about Maine’s future employment opportunities should shape training programs that better prepare TANF recipients for lasting success in the workforce.
Treating TANF recipients as unemployed workers and giving them full access to the Department of Labor’s vocational assessment, career training and business recruitment tools should be part of that adjustment. So, too, should be an acknowledgement of federal data that show a strong correlation between level of education, wages and likelihood of retaining employment.
Specifically as it relates to public assistance programs, a 2008 report by professors Sandra Butler and Luisa Deprez presents a decade of evidence to demonstrate that the Parents As Scholars program, which makes TANF-like benefits available to full-time college students who meet TANF eligibility guidelines, provides a reliable route to self-sufficiency.
In that survey, 95 percent of the former Parents As Scholars participants reported being employed, with a median wage of $14.31 per hour. Their challenges didn’t disappear, but these Mainers who successfully left the welfare rolls did experience a level of economic stability that aligns with what should be the desired outcome of welfare-to-work programs.
Even with the time constraints imposed by a 60-month TANF eligibility limit, education remains one of the best and most reliable routes out of poverty. Changes in the way the state works with recipients to prepare for life after TANF should reflect that fact.
Without education, these people will end up at WalMart and Burger King when the welfare runs out. We will still be supporting them either way.
So they can get educated. Kids can graduate high school and in FIVE years potentially have a masters degree. We have a long history of expecting nothing of welfare recipients, and many of them have the “gee, what I am I to do” attitude. I wonder what some of them thought….I have no education, have a kid a year for the past 4 years and wonder why I have no money. FIVE years to “get on your feet.”….really? It sounds like way more than enough time.
People should be more outraged that this 5 year limit had not been in effect LONG ago….but we all know the reason why it wasn’t.
Some people will get educated. But, some are barely capable of working at places like WalMart or McDonald’s, let alone going to college. My point is that we should not have to support anyone who goes to work every day. Just so their employer doesn’t have to. No one can live in 2012 on part time minimum wage jobs without a lot of public assistance. Public assistance that comes out of your’s and my pocket. Call me crazy, but I resent the Walton heirs hoarding $93 billion dollars while I have to kick in to buy their employees groceries and heating oil. I resent the stock holders of McDonald’s making billions while I take care of their employee’s health care and baby sitters. I think the owner’s of the corporations should have to go down to the welfare office with their under payed employees when they sign up for help. Send the media down and take lots of pictures. We could cure our economic woes and under employment overnight.
So minimum wage should be enough to support what, exactly?
A big mac should cost $18 so the uneducated can flip burgers 40 hours a week and support a house, family, car payments?
Pay is typically commensurate with experience, education and supply/demand.
That is a good question tjones64. Minimum wage should be enough where people can support themselves without government help, period. If it isn’t, the rest of us are expected to kick in the difference. It is most certainly far more than $7.50 an hour, part time. No one can live on that without help. Not in 2012 America. $500 rent, $400 groceries, and $100 for electricity and that check is gone. No car, no gas, no heating oil, no health care, and no chance of a raise. There are far too many college degrees floating around out there now and we have the trillion plus college loan debt to prove it. Someone has to flip your burgers, but when you pay at the cash register, that should be the end of it. As it is now, you will pay for that burger again with your taxes when you help to support the burger flipper so their employer doesn’t have to.
But who in their right mind actually believes “minimum wage” should be enough to support a rent/car/food, etc.
Minimum wage are for min wage jobs. What do you believe min wage should be? Exactly HOW much do employers have to pay unskilled labor? (what min wage jobs pretty much are). If min wage is $15-$18/hour, heck, why does anybody go to school?
You are getting into a complicated area here. Most people do not know this, but the largest “tax” government has imposed on people is the money manipulation and the dropping dollar.
Today’s U.S. dollar is worth only ten 1968 cents. That means that everything that cost $100 in 1968 should cost $1000 today. The government and business saw that problem coming, and took steps to shield themselves from it. Government salaries are indexed to inflation, so as the dollar drops, the salaries rise. Business moved factories first to southern non-union States, and then off shore to places where people worked for less….much less.
Unforunately the U.S. worker couldn’t live on Chinese wages, and couldn’t get the government to index their wages, so they were the ones who paid the largest tax ever imposed on U.S. citizens.
Our government has sold us out, and big business doesn’t need any of us anymore.
One of the casualities of this shrinking economy is that we can no longer afford to support people who live on our table scraps. There are no scraps anymore. These people better start hustling, or they are going to get stampeeded.
It just amazes me the limited imagination in thinking…………..It is complex in economics and most people don’t care to learn that subject. The problem has been created/intensified, in the last 11 years……………..5.-6 years ago I had some disposable income with my SS. Now still at 1/2 of the minimum wage it doesn’t even cover the basic necessities. The dollar HAS BEEN devalued……we had a financial CRISIS in 2008. Since Maine is a “old state”, many on SS incomes…….the SS trustees NOT increasing incomes to match inflation rates ( THAT’S ILLEGAL, BTW) I see that 1 out of every 3 small businesses have closed………….How many jobs for 1 or 2 employees is that? Don’t be too smug, you ” hard working, tax paying…..ones. YOU ARE NEXT.
How was I being smug? I was merely pointing out that either their employer pays them enough to support themselves, or the government, aka you and I, have to make up the difference. I have employed many people over the years and always payed them a living wage. I would not have my employees going down to the welfare office to apply for food stamps or LLIHEAP after working hard for me all week. It would be embarrassing to me as their employer.
So you made enough off of their work to pay them and still make a profit? If so then what would you do if the person does not have the skills to produce a return if paid more than minimum wage? Pay them anyway and lose money until you could no longer remain a business? In your world that person is out of ANY job. A minimum wage job should be a stepping stone to a more skilled position, not a lifetime goal.
They have 3 or 4 people at the fast food places that are full time every one else is part
You are welcome to start your own business and pay everyone whatever you like and make them all full time to boot. Are you too greedy to risk your own money to do that?
According to a report i read a year ago if they went up 50 cents at the most on there product there could give part time people full benifits an they could work 40 hrs a week
Why don’t you open a McDonald’s and pay your workers $18 an hour with full benefits?
Why dont you open one ?
Because I understand economics. You seem to think that someone else should be able to pay their help any amount and still make money. If you believe that they can do it then why can’t you?
Like i said you seam to have all the answer why don’t you open one im retired an im not going to lose my pension
You completely miss the point. You expect someone else to risk their money and pay whatever wage YOU think is appropriate, but YOU refuse to risk your money to do it.
If it’s such an easy thing to do, why don’t you do it and increase your income? I am not doing it because I KNOW that it is a great risk. You seem to think the only thing stopping the owners from paying more is greed. Are you just too greedy to risk your own money in order to pay someone a living wage?
Sad…..we are a one note economy………………..MacDonalds??? THE ONLY KIND OF BUSINESS THERE IS???? Walmart MacDonalds……………..total lack of imagination…………..I don’t set foot in either one of them and my income is $3.66 per hour! In one sense not having much income
is OK because there is NOTHING that I want buy……..poison food and cheap shoddy goods………..
“The best things in life ARE free” Although that too is becoming compromised………far fewer birds & FISH, than there used to be…….but the “shoppers” have their head in a big mac and don’t notice that corporate destruction of the environment is seriously depriving ALL of US!
30-40- YEARS AGO THERE WERE CHOICES, ……………………..NOT NOW.
That would be providing they had the same amount of sales. People have little money to spend as it is and the liberal solution is to raise prices.
What he is saying–the owners of the big corps are making the largest percentage–while they skimp on the workers. Min wage is not decent wage in this day and age. Everything is expensive.
Min wage was not a living wage 20 years ago either, so what’s your point?
Minimum wage is next to slavery, it seem to work as long as the state kicked in enough to get them along, now the state is kicking it’s heels, so something must give, and I would say that big corps need to pay $15.00 hr, that is really the very most basic wage a person can get and work and survive.
I have no issue with people making money. But when it is not done with moral integrity to me the is legal stealing . Higher lobbyist to bend laws in thier favor. No one goes to Jail when Walmart tells customer they need a digital antenna (no such thing as a digital antenna) to get digital TV . They sold ones for $70 that claimed a 55db (55db is almost a million times amplification) but yet is someone passed fake maple syrup off as real they would get 5 years in jail and a felony. Just one of millions of thing they do to make money .
It doesn’t matter how much you raise minimum wage…..unless people know how to be responsible with the money they earn, nothing would change. On top of prices going up so that minimum is still minimum and those working for those wages are still unable to get by. Teaching people to live by their means and that if you want things beyond…you have to work more/harder. In no way am I defending corporations…..but is someone who worked really hard to get ahead in life supposed to take care of everyone else’s problems too.
” Teaching people to live by their means and that if you want things beyond, you have to work more/harder.” How do you do that? Means shrinking, prices doubling……………… not realistic!
Not realistic? I live by my means just fine. I work for what I have and what I can’t afford I don’t have. I don’t have the latest greatest cell phone or internet service because I can’t afford it. I don’t have top of the line name brand clothing because I can’t afford it. But I have a home and a family and we work for what we have. That is living within your means. When prices double…..you have less. Am I saying that is fair? No. But life isn’t fair…or so they say. Plently of people are making it so I’d say its realistic if you want to do what needs to be done.
No they hire high schools kids an kid that are in collage. I know in our local paper interviewed the manger of one of the fast food place says that she hires 50 kids a year to work at McDonalds
Then they will learn to get up in the morning on time, how to dress proper, learn new skills, learn responsibility, feel good about themselves, and the list goes on. They might still need a little help here and there, but in the end they will learn to take care of themselves and make a living with their own sweat.
We pay upwards of $130,000 to educate each kid in Maine from k-12. Then we provide loans and grants for post secondary education. After they’ve squandered the chance we’ve given them we are now supposed to pay even more to try to educate them again? If you aren’t disabled and you can’t support yourself then you have no one to blame but yourself. Choices have consequences, or should.
Wants to dispel myths? Spend your (MY) money on food instead of tattoos.
I didn’t realize you could get a tattoo with a welfare card.
You get some cash to do with what you like. (cigarettes, alcohol, tattoos, bail money, etc).
Well, if you can afford tattoos, you can afford to feed and clothe yourself. That work better for you?
And you just know for sure that the tattoo came after the person was put on welfare? You can’t take them back for a refund or pawn them!
No one in Maine is “put on welfare” They have to apply and be accepted.
It’s always a temptation to look at someone on government benefits for signs of hidden assets. There is no evidence that this young woman had her tattoo done after she qualified for benefits. And someone else may have paid for it. The poor don’t have to be rag tag, with the swollen bellies that go with starvation, or live in shanty towns.
How many people are right on the edge they are one pay check from going under ?
The T in TANF means temporary. 6 years are enough, plus no one is truly alone. Depend on your family like we all did in situations like those. Granny, an aunt and uncle with brood moved in on occasion as needed. “Throw another potato in the pot!” It’s not a new concept.
60 months is 5 years, not 6. But yes, the T is temporary. If they suffer from a permanent condition then create a different program. This would help dispel ‘the myth’.
That was silly of me :)
How about people receiving TANF buying scratch tickets and megabucks tickets. I have seen it myself. This tells me they don’t need all the money they receive.
I noticed that right away too.
That is mean, might have been a gift, and who are you to make condescending remarks, about another human being, you do not even know personally.
Want to dispel myths? Don’t assume the tattoo came after welfare.
Incentivize is not a word
TRANSITIVE VERB: n·cen·tiv·ized, in·cen·tiv·iz·ing, in·cen·tiv·iz·es
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate: “This bill will help incentivize everybody to solve that part of the problem” (Richard A. Gephardt).
you know that word correction thing – it underlined it as wrong
Just because a spell-checker does not recognize it, does mean it’s not a word.
incentivizing is what you liberals HOPE to do with welfare.
but will never be
A few minutes ago you were sure it was not even a word, and now the voices in your head have convinced you it’s a liberal conspiracy. Scary!
it is! AHAHAHAHAHAHHaHAH
Another one of the “computer literate” graduates that Angus gifted us with no doubt.
What exactly is supposed to happen to people who get to the 60 month limit, and still can’t support themselves?
I understand that putting a deadline on something “incentivizes” people to resolve the problem, but what if they don’t get on their feet?
What is on the other side of that 60 month deadline? Work farms? People should know what it is that’s being proposed.
they find a different way.
they will go on the town or city
Move to Mass
We already have Auntie Zenutie to take care of. Look her up.
“Can’t” support themselves, won’t, or don’t want to? There is a huge difference. Recipients should demonstrate that they truly can’t. Do they drink alcohol? Smoke? Any drug involvement? On and on……..
Prove you can’t and don’t have vices we all pay for.
See reply above.
Exactly how long should we give people to “get on their feet?” If 5 years is not enough, what about 10 (and then what happens if they can’t get on their feet…..maybe 15 years, maybe forever).
People should take some responsibility for their own destiny and if being on the public dole for 5 years is not enough time to get your stuff together, get an education/retrain and maybe, just maybe STOP having kids you can’t afford, then what else are taxpayers supposed to do? (I know the liberal answer…….well, just keep paying, of course).
Well I don’t know if it’s a “liberal” answer, as you say, but I would like to hear what your answer is as to what we should do with people who simply can’t or won’t take care of themselves…
I understand how it works in nature… animals that don’t learn to hunt and fend for themselves quickly die and, sometimes, their species dies off completely.
I just want to hear somebody confirm for me that that’s what we want to codify into law in our state. Let someone here come forth and bring the argument to its logical conclusion, which is, if people can’t get on their feet in five years, send them out into the woods and let them die.
If that’s your position, go ahead and say so, and stop beating around the bush.
OK, I’ll take this one on. If, after five years having everything provided for you (like this will REALLY help you learn how to become self-sufficient) you are unable to do so, I recommend the following:
1. If you have any additional children conceived and born after you have been on welfare for five years, they immediately become wards of the state. Period.
2. You are provided a place to live and meals are provided for you. You don’t get EBTs, you don’t get vouchers. We build clean, simple buildings that are inspected weekly for evidence of alcohol or drug use. After all, if you have demonstrated you are unable to provide for the necessities, you don’t get to have extras like alcohol.
3. You don’t get to own TV, cable, a computer, a car, an air conditioner anything else not needed to survive. If you have the cash for those things, you don’t need my (the taxpayers’) help). If anyone “gifts” you those items, they are taken and sold to help defray the cost of the taxpayers’ burdens.
4. If you are caught violating the terms under which the state agrees to care for you, if you have any minor children, they immediately become wards of the state.
Draconian? You bet.
Problem here Tomcat. Children who become wards of the State typically wind up costing taxpayers more throughout their whole lives. Almost 50% of incarcerated people were in State fostercare as children. Almost 60% of all foster children spend time as adults in Prison, mental health facilities, or homeless shelters.
Tom, that’s only because the system is so screwed up that the children are well beyond infant and toddler stages (when they are most adoptable) by the time parental rights are terminated. I assure you, a newborn white baby (nay, I would wager ANY newborn of any race or sex) will have a waiting list a mile long if parental rights have been terminated and there is no risk that the adoption will fail.
And what your statistics tell me is that we can throw all the money at programs and problems that we want and NONE of it will make a damn bit of difference unless parents really care about their children. If their priorities lie elsewhere, the children will suffer and society will pay the price. Which makes me wonder why we allow our schools to be hamstrung by special ed and disabilities when we can’t even take the first step of checking to make sure the kids have a bed to sleep in, three meals a day, someone limiting their access to TV, internet, Xbox, or computers, and what time they get to bed at night. If we can’t even make sure these basic needs are being supplied, then we allow parents to raise yet another juvenile delinquent who will become an adult offender.
Pardon me but you severe predjudice and sense of superiority as showing.
OK, that’s your opinion. At least I made a recommendation to change the status quo. Instead of just complaining about my suggestions, offer your own. I suspect you won’t.
You are assuming people want to be on “welfare”. The fact is the majority of those are women receiving no child support and working low wage jobs. Just because they have a few creature comforts that you feel the are not deserving of doesn’t mean they are milking the program. Too bad some of you who so hate recipients couldn ‘t spend a day with a welfare worker and actually meet those you so disrespect and feel are the cause of all your woes. Maybe enforcing child support orders or judges ordering an amount that would actually help support a child, raising the minimum wage so people could afford child care, health insurance, a place to live and food. You should try to walk a mile in their shoes, you might just change your mind, but I hope you never have to.
“What we should do with people who simply can’t or won’t take care of themselves… ?”
Our society once knew how to tend to these folks, but The P.C. crowd decided that way to be an incorrect course.
Life for the unwilling needs to be tough and sparse. Life for the unfortunate needs to include work and education.
I propose that the dispensing of money for doing nothing ceases. I propose that the government become the employer of last resort and pay minimum wage to folks who claim they can not find a job. In return for this minimum wage, recipients need to pick up trash, paint the homes of older low-income folks, work in daycare for other client’s children and old folks, monitor playgrounds, and other work which does not compete with private enterprise.
There may be someone out there who can not do anything. That poerson should be evaluated and if family is not available to provide care, then we must provide essentials. I know many many handicapped individuals who can and want to work, even if it involves nothing more than knitting mittens for poor children.
Giving out cash payments and the liberal despensing of wants, as opposed to needs is not working. Even the most liberal person on this board must recognize that this system is as bad for the recipient as it is for the taxpayer.
Five years sounds like a good time limit to move from assistance to independence. But what about people who already had their five years (plus some)? Are they to be given another five years in which to meet the target for achieving an education and finding work? Or do we allow the federal government to cut them from the dole and shift the cost onto the local taxpayer?
“Obstacles to entering the workforce, such as lack of training and affordable child care, are.” Really? They are figuring this out now? This idea has been around for decades, but college is far from cheap. Plus it is not easy either. I know many adults who have gone back to school to get their degrees, while they work full time and take care of their children, and it is not an easy lot. It takes a great deal of time and dedication–which is admirable but also not something you can expect of everyone in the world. We do need educational opportunities–yes–but we also need blue-collar jobs that can help provide a decent wage to those who can’t make it. A class at UMA for example runs over $700 and about another $200 for textbooks. That is just ONE class. Even if you get financial aid, it doesn’t usually pay it all. Coming up with $200 for your books and another hundred or more that financial aid doesn’t cover–is not easy for someone working in retail or other min wage jobs.
Try telling this to someone who has enough money, or has a job that pays above $25.00 a hour, and you will get all kinds of negative comments, but, for one who witnessess this, you are absolutely correct, and college does not always guarantee a good job, it is a tough road, for the key is for all to remember, only half of any paycheck can actually go to bills, living expenses takes the other half, on on paper it all looks different than the real world.
You have to take a minimum of 6 credits to be eligible for financial aid. If I wanted to return to school for a second degree now (I have an Associates) I have to take at least 2 classes to get any more student loans. Which means that I would have to pay out of my pocket 900 dollars or so and continue to pay for my existing student loans as well. Plus my mortgage, medical etc.
I think that the current rules for students just do not make any sense for an older, adult student. And they are the ones who have worked retail somewhere forever and finally decided that enough was enough and went back to school . We make much better students, but we still have ALL of our other ADULT responsibilities on top of the responsiblities of being a good student.
I have to add that there are numerous people on TANF while they are applying for disability with no intention of working. It would be really helpful if people would just think about having children and their ability to financially care for them before they have them. Before I get criticized for that, let me just say I am not referring to responsible people who lose their jobs-they would get unemployment.
Guess that this reduction may have a significant effect upon people moving to Maine to reap the benefits of being, on the system.
BDN: welcome to reality.
How much time does it take for an adult to take responsibility for their own lives and not to depend on the government or others to take care of them? 5 years, 10 years, 15 years how many?
Very good question…..
How long dose it take for the government to lower taxes so compains will move back to the USA ?
That’s a good question. Ask the Dems. they control country.
neather side wants to meet in the middle an the republicans are out to get rids of our president even if it mean destoring the united states. People say that they do not like BOTH houses an that every ome in both houses should be voted out
The President is destroying the United States while he gives away the contents of the treasury and borrows even more from China to give to his cronies.
Good! Good one I like it, but, don’t think the tea party republicans could see the point.
The average Chinese worker gets $14 a week. It is not about taxes, it is about labor. Companies won’t move factories back here until we are a third world mud-hole.
How long does it take for the country to STOP giving tax breaks to companies that move their operations overseas, thereby taking a lot of jobs with them?
Hears one for all of you what would you say if Hannaford, shaws an all big box stores changed to all part time jobs ?
Well, many thousands of workers would be thrown into poverty, and conservatives would say it was their own fault, since corporations can do no wrong.
In the 1960’s about every job, payed enough to buy a house and own a car and raise a family. All you had to do was go to work each day and stay sober on the job. Now, half the jobs do not pay enough to feed a family of four, and the Great Gov wants to beat on them? The 2.5 million savings will cost much more, this was a cruel move by the Gov and Republicans. What we need or are going to have to have is some kind of Dole, or Par system, where the cost of living are actually honestly figured, and if the income does not reach that, and there is honest and fair work being done by the earners, a Par system needs to kick in if insufficent wages are paid. Welfare really only begins when income is not enough to cover a family existence, what are they to do, starve in the streets to make people who have enough happy?
in the 1960’s every person didn’t have an average personal debt of $6000.00 tied around their neck and $50,000 federal debt per person or w/e its up to now.
I want to see fair wages paid as next as the next person but when the government which is just an extension of voters > people > employees starts setting what is and isn’t fair wages the power to make finical decisions for one’s own business get removed from that business and put it on track to bankruptcy.
Okay go to work making $10.00 an hr, work hard, get your check, and show me how you are going to support your wife, and child on that check. I think if you look, the Republicans are setting what is a fair wage, minimum wage, now, if you mean financial decision being removed from business, are you saying the ability to pay almost nothing for help is removed?? If you pay almost nothing for help, then the government has to help, so tell me what you mean.
We pay $130,000 to educate every kid in Maine from k-12. Then we supply loans and grants for post secondary education. If anyone can’t take care of themselves and is not somehow disabled then they have no one to blame but themselves.
Not really, I think you are wrong, a negative balance world exist out there, meaning there is already a three strike out enviroment waiting, and these kids end up home, because of it, I once lived for two full years in a one room shack in the woods with a wood stove and kerosene lamp, and a water pail, at least there was a spring close, however, I was lucky, it got me on my feet, kids now do not even have a chance like that, and, I am not sure they could take it, no phone, no computer, no tv, just a pile of books.
So what your saying is, it was hard but you did it on your own. You found a way live and support yourself and became a better person for it.
No! I am saying this chance does not exist in this world, in the 60,s we were not on-line, lol,
I blame a lot of the problems on kids being on-line, both by phone and computer, it is worst than a drug, they cannot get off it, it cost too, when I lived alone in the woods camp, a phone was a pay-phone once in a while, I still used the mail, most kids could not write or send a letter, we have created a different young adult than we were, and expect them to do the same, most cannot.
The poor little darlings CAN’T resist it. It’s like a drug and we have to supply it for them or there’s no telling what they might do. Next you’ll be telling us that we simply MUST supply them with free cell phones.
What’s that? We already do that? Including texting? Well, never mind then.
No, you have the wrong take as usual, I mean, we have a different young adult now, than in the 60’s, and I am not sure it is all their own fault. I am not saying they are better or worse than the 60’s generation, but we had less to complicate our world.
To go one step further, I sincerely think microsoft, apple, us cellular etc, should be required to pay to a fund to help these kids caught in this on-line world, it has them, it has taken them, and the companys just rake in the profit.
Good Lord, oldmainer! You are throwing one huge, threadbare, blanket of blame over a great many of your fellow citizens. There are a lot of legitimate reasons other than disability that might compel someone to seek assistance. Every comment you make is mean spirited and astonishingly simplistic. Fox Nation would welcome you with open arms. Give us all a break and move your rants there. Thanks a bunch.
Remember the time a woman would not marry a man who could not support her?
And anyone making $10.00 an hour has no business having a child.
Why would you have a child when you only make $10 hour. That’s just irrepsonsible.
Hey patten this program has been in effect for 60 months now. I think you are putting the blame in the wrong place. It’s simple math.
Explain what you are saying, I have no understanding of what you just said??
Baldachi and the Democrats were in control when the 5 year rule went into effect. Like I said simple math!
That is exactly why Medicaid is the health insurance of Walmart employees.
Here we go again:
Some people blame only Republicans for this position. Actually it was Bill Clinton who signed welfare reform into law. He could have vetoed it. He had the votes to sustain a veto, but he didn’t. Last time I checked Bill Clinton was a Democrat.
Welfare elegibility must be tied to some type of work, if it is meant to be temporary. It is unrealistic to believe that handing a person a check for doing nothing will move that person into the workforce.
We should also begin teaching children in elementary school the idea that they must live within their means. Extras such as cable TV, high-speed internet access, recreational drugs, booze, tatoos, and new cars are not a right.
The politically correct folks have hijacked our society with their stupid idea that no matter what your income level, you have the right to everything your wealthier neighbor can afford.
Stop buying non-essentials when you are broke. Cut off the cable, stop driving for unnecessary trips, cut down on the extra food (soda cake, potatoe chips) rent a smaller place,
If that doesn’t work, just move to Bangor where all the liberal college students will be glad to care for you.
I agree that we should incentivize long terms financial independence, but I’m disgusted by those who say things like that and then pass tax cuts that we can’t afford.
Then step up to the plate and write a check if you feel undertaxed and we can’t afford the cuts.
That’s a nonsense argument. It’d be like arguing, oh, you think crystal meth should be illegal? Well, why don’t you abstain and set the example, maybe others will be inspired by you. It’s silly and it doesn’t make sense. Taxation doesn’t work the way you’re suggesting it does and it never has.
We can always “afford” tax cuts. We can’t always “afford” spending.
Nope, not true.
Must be the opposite? I knew it was one way or the other.
Even if these people did get an education who says they will get hired ?
Who says they won’t? The only to find out would be for them to get an education and then make a true attempt to enter the workforce.
Companies can find all sorts of way for not hiring those people . no work experience, been out of work to long, to lazy ,,bad credit rating ,bad back ground check,, been in jail , over weight, plus you are a single parent, smoker, wont show company there social net work. need i say more ?
“Those people” as you call them can find all sorts of ways to not accept or look for a job…wages too low, not in my field, don’t want to work shifts, don’t want to start at the bottom, don’t want to work weekends. Not to mention that several of the items you mention are self-inflicted – bad credit, bad background, been in jail, smoker. Need I say more?
Ok lets take bad credit you have been paying all you bills all along all of a sudden the company down sizes an you are one of them you can’t get a job no you have a bad credit record so it that person fault that they were let go they were not lazy they were one of a highly paid hourly works. Wages to low you cant pay your bills on 7.50 an hr . They may not want to work shift work because of there kids they mite have there old parents that they are taken care of ? You can get put in jail for no reason even if you did nothing wrong like the kid that was stop an the cop said he was drinking an he said no an the cop arrested him took him to the station gave him a test an it showed he was not drinking an was let go but that will be on his record
Not that person’s fault they were downsized but if the bills they are unable to pay relate to revolving credit, then totally that person’s fault for living on credit.
You can’t pay your bills on $7.50/hour so I should pay your bills on my $10.00/hour?
People have to find child care or parent care when they work 9 to 5; what’s the difference in finding care givers to cover nights?
You will need to provide some real facts on “the kid” before that anecdote has any credibility.
How can you not live on credit as you say like house payments, car payments. So you expect you parents to take car of you kids if you work they have all ready done there job of raising you thats enough .
States need to drug test welfare recipients. That probably cut off half the people that receive the benefits. Also should be required to show ID when using their food stamp card so people will stop selling food stamps for drug money!!! Also people should stop having babies they can’t afford and relaying on the state to raise their kids. The whole system needs a makeover. There is way to much abuse!!!!!
How does a person actually sell the use of an EBT debit aka “Food Stamp” card for drug money? Even when the state used paper food stamps, the recipient had to show an ID at the grocery store in order to use them. They also had to physically tear the 5 and 10 dollar “stamps” out in front of the cashier. Only 1 dollar stamps were good without the book they came in. The cash drawer had Food Stamp “ones” to give as change. The store would tell us that MOST cash register mistakes at the time were from incorrect counting of the Food Stamp bills both by the recipient and by the cashier. The EBT card made things better for everyone.
By the way. how do you propose they test all recipients? Do you know how expensive that would be? The test would have to meet “the test of evidence” and be able to stand up in a court of law. They could possibly screen someone and pass them, but they would need a second confirmatory test that maintains the integrity of Chain of Evidence in order to remove someone from eligibility.
Please do not ask it happens lol They could go shopping with the person buying for so much on the dollar.
All they gotta do is give the person their card and pin number and they pay 50% of what they spent in cash. It happens way more then you think there smart guy!!! A drug test would save the state way more money then paying all the addicts habits.
Do you know anything about the Chain of Custody for collecting and testing a sample for drug testing? Do you know how complicated it is to get a legally binding test result that will stand up in a court of law?
Fl. did that an the person taking the test had to pay for it but if the passed the state had to pay them back an guess what they only found i think 4 out of how many thousands so the state stopped doing because it cost the state to much money. The courts have all ready ruled that the test can’t be done because they are picking in one class of people . You same companies give tests they do but thats for safety .
How do they sell an EBT card? They hand it, and the four number pin to someone who hands over cash. You can make cash withdrawals at ATMS two times a month with inpunity, and nobody ever checks for ID when you swipe your EBT card at a store.
It’s not constitutional.
You are right! I think that it is vital in this situation to protect the rights of the innocent; even if it means that some individuals who do abuse the system will go unpunished.
What is not Constitutional?
I must present my birth certificate and have a valid social security number to get a drivers license. I must present my photo ID at Walmart when the computer randomly flags my credit card.
TTruck drivers and school teachers must be fingerprinted before getting certification/license, and many workplaces do random drug testing of their employees on a regular basis.
I agree that once upon a time, when we had a serious fourth amendment, this would have been questionable, but now that the Supreme Court has ruled the above issues to be “constitutional” I would guess that drug testing of welfare recipiants may be also.
Showing your ID and having your background checked is very far and separate from being drug tested. But either way, driving, truck driving, teaching, etc. aren’t a constitutional right like voting is. The SJC hasn’t answered the specific question, but broad and suspicion-less drug tests have been ruled constitutional. Several federal courts have answered the specific question and they do say that drug testing welfare recipients IS unconstitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/us/court-rules-florida-governors-drug-testing-order-unconstitutional.html
I don’t see a reason for pushing this beyond vilifying those on welfare. The states that have implemented drug tests haven’t seen success. They haven’t been high “catch” rates (in fact, the catch rates show a lower drug use than in the general population) and ultimately, it has costed more money to test than has been saved. Just seems like more big government proposals from the same people who claim they want limited government.
,” the catch rates show a lower drug use than in the general population)”
True, but that is because people do not go in for the test if they know they will fail. That is the point you know.
Whatever, it’s still not constitutional.
There is absolutely no way you can know if it is constitutional or not. The Supreme court has not ruled on this issue yet.
The courts that have answered the question have ruled it to be unconstitutional and those rulings haven’t been appealed. It’s settled law for the states that have tried it.
Pity
We are glad you don’t live in Maine, too. Flatlander.
Yes…it should. But what it should do and what it does isn’t necessarily the same.
“Even with the time constraints imposed by a 60-month TANF eligibility limit…”
I’m not an expert when it comes to conversions, but I believe that 60 months is 5 years. Since when has five years been temporary?
These BDN editorials are littered with the word “should,” so I’d like to make a suggestion to the powers that be: you should write an editorial highlighting and ranking the best anti-poverty programs. What would come out on top? TANF? SNAP? Food stamps? I know what I would suggest: a job. And the bigger this government gets, the more the private economy recedes while the opportunity to find work shrinks. Welfare programs like TANF are becoming too big to fail.
Why would the welfare/non profit complex want people to get off welfare? Their client base would dry up and they’d be out of a job. Better to keep adding “clients”.
There’s no job security in success when it comes to this enterprise.
Sorry. oldmainer, boilerplate talking points that emanate from the reactionary echo chamber do nothing to illuminate or advance this discussion. Do you have anything of substance to add?
It’s time to end nasty bullying comments about desperately poor people.
It’s catnip for them, unfortunately. Thank Limbaugh and Beck, and the other earwigs who have corrupted the minds of the American populace. They actually think they’re being virtuous.
No, actually I have no T.V. I get my information from working for D.H.S. providers.
No one in Maine is “desperately poor.” I have yet to see an adult who doesn’t eat, has no clothing, or can’t find an alcoholic beverage when they want one. The really poor in Maine are all children, poor because their parents choose to spend State funds on wants, rather than needs.
I have seen desperately poor folks. People who wear rags, and lived in the huge garbage dumps outside CaracasVenezuela. People in the 1960’s on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, or the Kickapoo reservation near Wyandotte Oklahoma.
There is a woman down the Street from me who remember when Maine had really poor people. She remembers sleeping on the floor in a potato sack. she remembers that years when her father failed to get a deer that the family ate potatoes all winter. she remembers washing in the snow before going to shhool.
Funny thing about that woman though. since the day she turned 16, she has never been without a job, and her life (according to her) has been pretty good.
It appears that you believe no one can be considered to be poor until they are naked apart from some rags, sleeping on a flour sack, and close to dying of starvation.
Would you condescend to help them at that point? Or would you tell them the story of how desperate poverty turned out to be a great start for your friend, and advise them to pull them up by their bootstraps as she did?
Are you “helping” people or enslaving them?
Are you “helping” people or hoping to let them die in the streets?
I think that is often the result of your “help”.
You facilitate drug use. People will use drugs.
You’re not making sense.
He’s making perfect sense. I’ve seen people destroyed by your gentle charity/ Destroyed!!!
It’s OK, Liberals often don’t recognize the damage they do to other people because they are too distracted by telling themselves how wonderful and charitable they are.
What a gross outlook to have.
Slavemaster? Keep people dependent and poor.
You apparently think all it takes to be poor is to call yourself poor.
You Liz said “desperately” I said no!
I work in a field that deals with TANF recipients and other “poor” people, I find it amusing that only now after their benefits are being shut off that they are now scrambling to get a job. There was no urgency to get educated or look for work until the five years was up, now that the gravy train has stopped it’s a mad dash to try and find employment. However the five years was squandered with living in subsidised housing, eating junk food and smoking cigarettes. Not to mention the expensive cable/sat tv, tatoo’s and I’ve also seen some impresive DVD collections. None could have been bothered to be trained or educated for any job that didn’t involve flipping cow parts on a hot grill at the local McD’s where they often go for nurishment.
Having said that, I also work with people that CAN’T take care of themselves without a lot of help, those I don’t mind paying taxes to help support.
Trouble is, the proposed changes will harm the people unable to care for themselves without help. The avowed aim is always to be selective, and only be stricter with people who are lazy, but in reality there’s no selectivity built into the changes.
Which, Liz, is the reason it was a mistake to Federalize The welfare system, and run that money through State capitols to get funds where they NEED to go.
Welfare should be requested and delivered at the local level. That way folks would have to ask people they know for these funds, and the people who “know” would know if those funds are needed to feed children, or if they were being wasted on drugs, booze and tatoos.
How small and compact a state do you think Maine is, that applicants would be personally known to DHHS? And how would it work in more populous states?
Or are you assuming that this would occur on the level of towns, villages, and townships? Or perhaps that churches would provide all necessary assistance? Would you assign the pastor, town manager, or town clerk to make home visits, opening cupboards to check on the amount of food, sitting in on family meals, and taking urine samples to test for drugs?
Absolutely return food assistance to churches. I spoke with a pastor once who became disgusted with the entitled attitude of people who received food assistance from the church. Had people dictating what they would and would not take for free food, based on preference only. Don’t think he was in a hurry the next time she called to say her cupboard was bare…
On a community level, we can tell who’s abusing drugs and alcohol, who’s out partying at night and leaving the children to fend for themselves. Who’s watching soaps all days, who’s gaming the system. If we remove the capacity to game the system, you’d be surprised what people can do for themselves.
Must be nice hat you have all day to sit at your window and watch what your neighbors are doing. Maybe you need to get off the couch and get a job!!
Seriously, northernmaine, what field do you work in? If you would give us more information about your occupation it would be very useful. I, for one , am sincerely interested in your perspective on this subject. Thanks.
I worked in the Food Stamp and TANF programs for 31 years and the majority of people reeiving help were the working poor and someone who needed the help through no fault of their own. I believe northernmaine’s perspective is based solely on his/her own predjudices not fact.
Hey Pondlady, what you say is very true, and this Governor’s stupid stance on this, is dangerous, in the sense, people are going to get desparate, I simply wish Lepage had gone to Canada during the Vietnam War and stayed there.
While I haven’t been in this field as long as you, I think you must have had blinders on of you think that corruption is not widespread in this system.
Like I said originally, I have no problem helping those that CANNOT help themselves but I see way to many that are making a lifestyle out of this on my nickel. Those that can afford $120 satellite TV packages and cigarettes, 4 wheelers ect. don’t need to be living on the state ( I dealt with that just last week)
I work closely with those in the DHHS, battered women, mental health patients. I see it all. Having said that, from my observations at least half of those I work with maybe more are mooching the system. For anyone that says I am being prejudiced, I know what I personally witness, you don’t.
Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it. Would you be willing to be more specific? You say “I work closely with those in the DHHS, battered women, mental health patients” but you did not give any indication as to the nature of your work. Whenever the subject of welfare arises the comment boards light up with folks who claim that they constantly witness fraud and abuse. I strongly suspect that while many of those posters, with no experience in social work, may have seen an incident or two, they have extrapolated that to condemn anyone on any form of public assistance whatsoever. However, as a professional in this field, your observations would certainly be much more relevant and worthy of consideration. As I said in my original question to you, I am sincerely interested in your perspective on this contentious issue. But without knowing your “job description” I will not be able to put that perspective in a larger, more nuanced context. Thanks.
Agree with the main point of your comments, that it seems there is no accountability from those receiving many benefits to look for employment, seek education, control spending and generally be responsible and accountable for said “help”……no one who works for a living wants to stop helping thru our taxes those who need help and cannot help themselves….it seems you are hitting at the point of controversy that is the unacknowledged elephant in the room…..
Steven King needs to be stripped of all his cash. These folks can spend it better
OK, I’ll take this one on. If, after five years having everything provided for you (like this will REALLY help you learn how to become self-sufficient) you are unable to do so, I recommend the following:
1. If you have any additional children conceived and born after you have been on welfare for five years, they immediately become wards of the state. Period.
2. You are provided a place to live and meals are provided for you. You don’t get EBTs, you don’t get vouchers. We build clean, simple buildings that are inspected weekly for evidence of alcohol or drug use. After all, if you have demonstrated you are unable to provide for the necessities, you don’t get to have extras like alcohol.
3. You don’t get to own TV, cable, a computer, a car, an air conditioner anything else not needed to survive. If you have the cash for those things, you don’t need my (the taxpayers’) help). If anyone “gifts” you those items, they are taken and sold to help defray the cost of the taxpayers’ burdens.
4. If you are caught violating the terms under which the state agrees to care for you, if you have any minor children, they immediately become wards of the state.
Draconian? You bet.
I think that the premise of what you are saying is spot on…..The only thing I might disagree with is waiting 5 years…..if someone receiving benefits has no physical or mental challenges that impede them from becoming more independent, than there should be an indication with effort on the part of the benefit recipient much earlier on in regards to self provision and independence…..
I agree. There should be a very tight time restriction on people who receive aid and have no physical limitations.
“Elizabeth, who spoke with her daughter Julie by her side, is a single mother of two who was homeless until April 7. Her homelessness was the result of domestic violence.”
“BJ embezzled money from a former employer to feed her abuser’s drug habits. She credits her arrest on a felony theft charge and four years in a southern Maine women’s prison for giving her the time, courage and resources she needed to turn her life around. Now remarried, a mother of two and full-time mentor of domestic violence victims at Spruce Run, BJ graduated from the University of Maine two weeks ago.”
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/05/23/health/maines-poor-take-to-stage-in-bangor-in-effort-to-dispel-myths/
Here we go again with the “single mother” politically protected term (unless she is a widow, she is NOT a single mother. She did not get pregnant through divine intervention, and she CHOSE to have two children with someone she now claims was a domestic abuser. Her homelessness is the result of HER choices. If she was getting tattoos BEFORE she knew the guy was an abuser, she should have spent more time getting to know the man who would become the father of her children. If she got her tattoos after she began relying on public assistance, the system is truly messed up.
Wait a minute! I was a MARRIED woman when my children were conceived; and I was a MARRIED woman when my children were born. But I became a “SINGLE MOTHER” when their father left us. I was fortunate in that he supported his children and I NEVER was on welfare or Food Stamps. I resent your implications of the term “single mother”. Many mothers and FATHERS find themselves in a situation where they are in need of help and to lump everyone into categories serves no useful purpose.
No, you were a DIVORCED MOTHER. Sylas, what I am objecting to is the attempt to hijack the term, “single mother,” so that inevitably, whenever it appears, we believe we are dealing with a mother whose children have no father and who is therefore incapable of doing for herself. As you indicated yourself, your husband financially supported his children. Therefore you were not without aid raising your family.
its about time we cut welfare.
Assistance with accountability and access to skill-specific education to move forward is precisely what is needed to assist the majority of those in need to move forward into the realm of tax paying citizens. There will always be a percentage that we shouldand must support for life. Everyone else should be considered a work in process incentives and benchmarks to move forward.
Absent the incentive human nature will vote itself into the treasury, which deprives those truly in need of assistance and the rest of us our earnings or savings. And that’s not fair and it is not right. I respectfully disagree with the Left’s pronounced tendency to redefine “fairness” as taking more than a fair share from those who earned it to be redistributed to those who have no intention of earning anything.
Very well stated and agreed…..
The left isn’t doing that. No one on the left is clapping their hands that some people rely on welfare. No one is excited about that or that some are milking the system. Why would you say that?
The left is however asking that people who benefit from a system to pay into that system so that future generations can similarly have the chance to fail or succeed as well. You can be an entitled brat and whine that that is redistribution all you want, but that doesn’t erase the fact that those who “earned it” still rely heavily on the system America has in place as well.
“That terminology masks the fact that TANF caseloads are made up primarily of parents and children. Some are domestic violence survivors. Some are disabled. Those conditions won’t change after 60 months.”
I’m not exactly sure what they mean by “Those conditions won’t change after 60 months” but I can say, as a DV survivor who did not sign up for benefits, in LESS than 5 years I have a great job with benefits and my children are well cared for. How did I do that? By not sitting around whining about how hard everything is and I kept putting one foot in front of the other. No, it wasn’t easy and it wasn’t always pretty but here we are, doing well. So, if someone who is able to work and can’t get retrained or earn a degree to better themselves and find a job or jobs in 5 years, it makes me wonder what they are doing with their time and benefits. I’m living proof that it doesn’t take 5 years to get back on your feet after hardship and I don’t have family who helped and I never signed up for benefits. We made do with what we had and I worked very hard to get here.
Same BS for two generations now. The system still breeds children dependent on benefits, many of whom go on to keep having children simply to qualify for the welfare until their offspring age out, by which time they will be on disability, etc. Whatever it takes.
The real crime is that the state and cities (Bangor, Lewiston, Portland) pay “administrators” six-figure salaries to perpetuate this sleaze. They will retire at relatively young ages and collect generous pensions and healthcare at taxpayer expense FOR LIFE.
So please let’s not sit around and pontificate and wonder where the money has gone. We have to chip away at this granite bureaucracy before we can really fix this mess.