The Maine GOP wants voters to weigh in on changes to Maine’s public assistance programs after lawmakers did little this year in the way of adding hurdles before people in poverty can qualify for assistance, imposing restrictions on how they use their benefits and toughening penalties for not complying with program rules.
The Maine Republican State Committee last month authorized Party Chairman Rick Bennett to take whatever action necessary to bring income tax reduction and “welfare reform” initiatives to the ballot.
The party hasn’t announced precise details for either proposal, but Gov. Paul LePage this spring tried — and failed — to enact a range of restrictions on recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Those proposed changes included:
— A requirement that TANF applicants prove they applied for at least three jobs before becoming eligible for benefits.
— Removal of most latitude DHHS caseworkers have to waive work requirements.
— A prohibition on using TANF benefits — which recipients can withdraw as cash — for tobacco, liquor, imitation liquor, gambling, the lottery, tattoos and bail and on using EBT cards for purchases at tobacco specialty shops.
— Tougher penalties for failure to follow TANF rules, including a termination of benefits for the full family, children included, rather than only the adult recipient.
— A limit on the size of EBT card withdrawals and a prohibition on using the card outside the state.
A separate, failed LePage bill proposed a drug screening requirement (with possible drug testing) for all TANF applicants and beneficiaries.
The requirements respond to the common anecdotes that carry the debate about changes to the state’s welfare programs — the tale of the non-working person in line at the convenience store using an EBT card to buy lottery tickets or cigarettes or the story of the EBT card found following a drug bust.
But those anecdotes don’t prove that abuse of public benefit programs is widespread and that the programs aren’t serving their purpose. They don’t highlight the expense and inefficiency involved with instituting such restrictions on recipients of public benefits. And they don’t highlight true improvements that could make public assistance programs more effective in helping recipients escape poverty.
They do, however, succeed in turning public opinion against public assistance programs and the people who rely on them, which is precisely what the Maine GOP would need in order to succeed with a welfare question before voters.
But as voters consider measures to make it more difficult for people in need to access public benefits and make life harder while relying on them, they should consider this: There’s a good chance they’re voting on a source of assistance they will at one point need.
A study published last month in the journal PLOS One analyzed data collected from the longest-running study of the socioeconomic status of Americans. Since 1968, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics has tracked a sample of 5,000 families and 18,000 individuals through their lives.
The authors of the PLOS One study dug into the data and found that, by the time they reach age 60, four of every five Americans have gone through a spell of economic hardship. They might have lost a job; their income might have plummeted; they might have turned to a public assistance program.
Some 42 percent of Americans, according to the analysis, have spent at least a year living in extreme poverty (when their income has fallen to the bottom 10 percent of the scale). Forty-five percent have received some form of public assistance at some point.
One important revelation? Those spells of hardship, especially those that involve reliance on public assistance programs, are often temporary. Reliance on welfare is a way of life for very few.
That’s the reality voters should keep in mind if they have the chance to consider the Republicans’ welfare question — that there’s a good chance they’ll, at some point, need the assistance on which they’re voting.
