TENS OF THOUSANDS LOSE BENEFITS AS TOUGHER WELFARE LAWS GO INTO EFFECT FOR MICHIGAN

Today, two laws redefining Michigan's welfare system go into effect. Last month, Governor Rick Snyder signed a bill that places a 48-month lifetime welfare cap for recipients. This means that a person who signs up for welfare can receive benefits for four years, period. It can be consecutive or off and on. Once the 48 months are up, that's it.

Sadly, those who have been on welfare for 48 months or longer are getting kicked off of welfare...today. Governor Snyder is trying to restore cash assistance to what it is originally intended for, temporary assistance. He feels that people are getting too complacent with their benefits and not trying hard enough to stand on their own feet.

As each day goes by, a new set of people will be kicked off of welfare. It's expected that roughly 41,000 adults and 30,000 children are expected to lose benefits today alone.

Of course there will be some exemptions. Those who have a disability and can't work will receive and extension (to the limit, which is not specified), those caring for a disabled child or spouse, and those over 65 who don't qualify for Social Security benefits.

Governor Snyder also signed a bill that will terminate a recipient's cash benefits if their child is truant in school. Children up to the age of 15 will be considered truant if he or she has 10 or more unexcused absences a year.

Some feel that this is a bit harsh and that some type of notice should be sent out before the actual termination. I'm here to tell those folks that if you don't know if your child has missed 10 or more days of school, then something is severely wrong with you.

There are progress reports and report cards that have the attendance for that period on it. Oh, and you can call or visit your child's teachers too. So if a letter informing you of the cancellation of your welfare is what you need, then that's really too bad. Besides, wouldn't it already be too late?

According to Snyder, this is an attempt to add responsibility and accountability to welfare recipients. Adding a stipulation such as this should be an incentive to those receiving benefits to make sure their children go to school, as if that wasn't something that should already be done. It should also help the recipient to appreciate their assistance.

What do you think? Is Governor Snyder too harsh with his welfare reform? What about kicking parents off of welfare if their children are truant? What about the 48-month lifetime cap? Is he a genius for saving the state $60 million a year with this one program alone?

Read More

FL. GOV. RICK SCOTT MANDATES DRUG TESTS FOR WELFARE RECIPIENTS, STATE EMPLOYEES, ACLU SUES

[editor's note: We don't intentionally pick on Florida, all the good stuff just happens there.]

While campaigning in 2010, Florida Governor Rick Scott vowed to mandate drug testing for state workers and welfare recipients.  In March, he signed an order requiring the testing of state workers and pressed his Government to require drug tests for applicants to Florida's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

This isn't sitting well with some Floridians and advocacy groups.

For starters, the company that will be doing the drug screening is a company Scott owns.  Before Scott was inaugurated, he tried to avoid violating ethics laws by putting the business in his wife's name under the Frances Annette Scott Revocable Trust.  

Earlier this year, Gov. Scott said that he’d been trying to sell his health clinic since November, citing lack of time to focus on it, not due to any conflicts of interest.  The governor also said the company wouldn't do any business with the state.  He then said he found a buyer, the company's minority shareholder, private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe of New York. The deal was expected to close on April 29, 2011 according to Scott spokesman Brian Burgess, but hasn't happened.  Personally, if he transferred the company to his wife, shouldn't she be trying to sell it or not allowing the company to do the screening? 

I've always asked the question, "should welfare applicants/recipients undergo drug testing", and I've always said they should.  Far too many people are turning their monthly benefits into cash and using the cash to buy drugs.  The ACLU has disagreed with my position for years despite the many people I've personally witnessed abusing the system.  I know of at least three families in Michigan that raked in around $3000 a month in benefits, only to use that to use and sell drugs.  They were making $60,000 a year doing nothing, while I worked hard for 2/3 less.  In 1999, Michigan began drug-testing all welfare recipients, prompting the ACLU to sue. In 2003, a federal appeals court ruled that universal drug testing was unconstitutional, so the ACLU and the state reached an agreement that allowed drug tests of welfare recipients only if there was reasonable suspicion that the person was using drugs.  

Now, the ACLU of Florida is suing Gov. Scott to stop random drug testing (to be administered by his company that he doesn't own) of state employees.  Announcement of the lawsuit came the day after he signed the bill requiring drug tests for welfare applicant/recipients.  Insiders say the ACLU is expected to challenge that policy very soon.

The state-employee lawsuit was filed on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Richard Flamm, a 17-year state employee from St. Petersburg who works for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as a researcher. Attorneys argue that the new policy, which calls for random drug testing of more than 100,000 state employees, violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on unlawful searches and seizures.

I don't think that employees should be subject to random screening, just once at the time of hire is good enough.  If there's an incident at work, I agree with giving one to determine if the employee was under the influence of any drugs, but anything more than that would be redundant and costly.

Observing Governor Rick Scott as an outsider leads me to believe that he signed that executive order so his business can get the state contract...even though he's trying to cover it up.

Do you think welfare applicants and recipients should get drug screened?  What about random tests for state employees?

Read More