Governator Schwarzenegger attempts to terminate welfare
Filed under: Budgets, Recession, Stimulate US, Recession Diaries
While indicating that he has no other choice, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed the complete elimination of cash assistance payments for that state's poorest individuals. Needless to say, the proposal has met with stiff resistance.According to a story released by MercuryNews.com, by rejecting a $3.7 billion federal, welfare-to-work block grant, Schwarzenegger's plan would free his state from paying $1.8 billion in matching funds. However, one additional consideration is that California would also lose $600 million in federal stimulus funds if it rejected the welfare grant.
On it's face, the entire idea seems quite foolish. Simply put, by saving the state budget $1.8 billion, the governor's plan strips the California economy of a much needed cash infusion of $4.3 billion. Most importantly, all that money would be withheld from the poorest segments of society and from infrastructure projects. Those are arguably the two areas which need money the most.
The Mercury News quoted former Assemblywoman Dion Aroner, creator of California's welfare-to-work program, as stating "...it's hard for me to believe that the Legislature would ever agree to that -- or that this is a serious proposal even from this governor."
At this point, it appears that Schwarzenegger's proposal has all but dropped dead. Even liberal democrats have come forward to assert that there must be better ways to trim the state's budget. The general consensus is that this particular gambit would cause much more hardship than it would be worth.
In the mean time, Schwarzenegger has warned that this is just the beginning, as he undertakes the task of tweaking a budget which is $24 billion in the red.
It's my opinion that if the Governator was to forward too many more ideas similar to this one, he himself might want to "get to da choppa" in one big hurry.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-11-2009 @ 3:37PM
Country Sue said...
Welfare SHOULD be eliminated or redone..How did it ever come to pass that we reward bad behavior?..A girl drops out of school at 15 and has 3 illegitimate babies by 3 different unemployeed ex-cons and she gets a free house, free food, free medical care and spending money the rest of her life??? Or someone's a junkie and they get disability because they can`t work because they are high?...It`s a joke..The woman nextdorr to me is on Section 8 housing and has 2 welfare babies and gets food stamps and medical coverage and there must be 4 people who have jobs living with her in the house and none of them have to pay any bills because we are paying them all..Same with the stupid handicapped parking tags or passes..I think I`ve seen 3 actually disabled people get out of those cars of the 1,000's I`ve seen in my life :-(
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 1:02PM
Valerie said...
Yeah I figure, but he could have not picked the worse time considering that California is officially broke and there is no jobs right now out here. The welfare is the only thing people have to depend on right now. What are the people suppose to do when the run out of unemployment and there are no jobs? He better start building more prisons cause I know as a parent I would do anything to feed my children. And I do not think I would be alone. You know that Arnold is giving the Hollywood Producer millions of dollars in tax credit all on the suffering of the little Children? I will be okay because my son and I are on disability. But I do worry about all the children. He has already taking away dental and eye care from the children and you think that it is right? It isn't the children's fault what their parents do or not do.
6-10-2009 @ 7:27PM
Mike DeFilippi said...
This is great news! I live in area where people abuse welfare/food stamps so bad its sickening. Arnold is the only politician with any grapefruits!
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 3:37PM
BRiTNEY said...
He is a corrupt dog.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 3:29PM
Valerie said...
You are so right now is not the time to be cutting welfare when there are no jobs in California.
6-11-2009 @ 3:35PM
Sissy said...
Start with Octo-mom. She should be in jail for fraudently collecting food benefits for her ridiculously huge family. She clearly has money for cosmetic surgery and fertility procedures so why should she get taxpayer money to pay for her groceries? Skank.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 3:34PM
Flippin said...
GET TOUGH, Families Need to Take Their Members in.
no more Time out People!
You Tell and Show "em Arnold !!
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 3:36PM
Jackson said...
This is never a cut and dry issue-reform is needed- but this is not the answer. Training and education within a structured time frame has and will support the welfare to work programs success.
And Sue---how cynical your observation is of those who need to use handicapped parking. It's amazing you can visually assess the medical situation of an individual and determine they have met the requirements to use that parking space. Did it EVER occur to you that many people have disabilities other than ones that you can see? It obvious by your comments that choose not to be compassionate but to judge others by the tidbits of information you can grasp onto.
Reply
6-10-2009 @ 11:49PM
harold said...
Cut out welfare?,,,, that will never happen but maybe they need to look at each case and see how many generations are sitting home and collecting a check and not doing anything for it or make it a little bit harder to get!!! I have worked it the retail business for 30 years and have seen millions of dollars handed over to these people. Then us average american who tries to keep a roof over our head and work still cant enjoy life. I guess playing the system is the way they do it... Its mostly the illegal folks who should go back to where they came from.
Country Sue comments above says a lot of my same feelings.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 10:54AM
Donovan said...
Welfare benefits need to have a time limit set, as to the maximum number of payments an individual can receive in one state.
I'm not talking about disability payments, or financial help for our elderly individuals. Who have no choice, or option to change their financial circumstances.
I'm talking about an individual applying for welfare, who finds themselves in dire financial distress, due to circumstances (beyond their control) only being able to collect 6 to12 to 18 months of benefits in one state. If one is unable to change ones financial circumstances for the better in one state, in 6 to 12 to 18 months. Then its time move somewhere else/another state. Where perhaps ones chances of being able to improve their financial situation would be much better.
This might be a option for California, and other states to consider implementing.
Reply
6-16-2009 @ 12:50AM
amanda said...
I agree with Donovan. There just needs to be more oversight so that the welfare system is not abused. Unfortunately, it's difficult to tell if more oversight would actually save more money by keeping people from abusing it because it just may cost more money to provide that oversight. Who knows? I just feel it morally right to help those in need, at the same time, morally wrong for those who don't need it to abuse the system.
Reply