Posted on 01/08/2007 11:09:21 AM PST by Princip. Conservative
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will propose a major rollback of the state's welfare system this week, including a cutoff of aid to tens of thousands of children whose parents do not meet minimum work requirements or are in the country illegally, administration officials said Sunday.
The proposed $465-million reduction in California's welfare budget came two days after the governor promised that his second term would feature "post-partisan" cooperation.
It was met immediately with resistance from Democrats, who expressed bewilderment that the governor would attempt to cut welfare aid to children in the same week his administration is expected to move forward with a plan to expand health insurance to many of the same children.
"It's ironic that the governor is proposing healthcare for poor kids while taking away their breakfasts," state Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) said of the cuts, which would affect more than 40,000 families. "Even Republican Gov. [Pete] Wilson, at the time he negotiated welfare reform, agreed that children should not suffer for the behavior of their parents."
The plan alarmed advocates for the poor, who predicted that eliminating the cash payments of several hundred dollars a month would substantially increase the risk of homelessness for those families.
Schwarzenegger's proposal also would eliminate this year's cost-of-living increase for welfare recipients.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It will be interesting.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will propose a major rollback of the state's welfare system this week, including a cutoff of aid to tens of thousands of children whose parents do not meet minimum work requirements or are in the country illegally, administration officials said Sunday.
hope he fares better than babies r us who decided to pony up a $25,000 prize to the chinese woman, here illegally, when the rules CLEARLY stated the mothers must be LEGAL RESIDENTS..
Rules?? We don't need no stinkin rules..
The only welfare that should be relatively wide open should be food aid. The reason for this is that without food you can do nothing. You can live without a home or just about everything else, but without food, you are reduced to animal needs, and in short order. There is no personal progress in the absence of food.
Add to that the fact that the US has vast amounts of food that we overproduce, having to throw away hundreds of tons every year. Storage and disposal it is more expensive than giving it away.
However, while food aid should be readily available, it should be carefully directed. That is, there are far too many families who eat only one or two staple foods and reject everything else. By being malnourished, their children do not physically and intellectually develop as much as they could.
Since these children must attend school, feeding them a more balanced diet will break them out of their deprived state. They will grow up wanting a more diverse diet than their parents.
Add it all together and it makes food aid the one kind of welfare that makes sense. Saves money, is necessary to self improvement, improves diet and health which eventually lowers medical costs.
I got to see the performance of several different concepts in charity.
The first was the Sallies, who won hands down with reliability. A permanent office providing a little food over the course of years filled much of the gap.
The second was the Food Not Bombs people. Definitely a flash in the pan, but for a short time provided serious meals to the homeless. They tend to grate on the local authorities though. A big appeal to the substantial anti-government majority, who are almost government-phobic, among the homeless. It could be said that Freepers distrust intrusive government, but the homeless actually meet intrusive government head on.
Third was a local organization that was highly effective. A group of five churches got together and actually polled the homeless about what they wanted. Then they came through with a really huge amount of socks and blankets in the dead of winter. It was the closest thing I've ever seen to a great definition of "Christian charity." They made a lot of friends all around. Kept it up all through the winter months.
Ironically, they got a most unique reward for their charity.
In my town, most of the homeless are kids, the adults preferring an adjacent town. Well, some of these kids have real sob stories about why they are on the street. Really traumatic stuff. By opening the door, several of those churches got walk-ins from kids who after they told their tales, just left the congregation in tears.
They ended up "adopting" the kids and helping them to get their lives in order. One girl was literally adopted after showing a back covered with scars from her mother's beatings. The mother was arrested and lost custody.
A pretty good spiritual return for some old socks and blankets.
The city itself didn't want anything to do with the homeless, and actually paid an adjacent city for it to have shelters and other services. They eventually went to great lengths to eminent domain the Sallies office, to close them down, too.
On and off they also had homeless hostile policies, like having the police confiscate and throw away their property, which is a strong message to get out. Didn't reduce the homeless numbers one bit, though.
PING
Any cut back with welfare is a good thing.
With the St. Leg. being majority Liberal, they arn't in the cut back mindset for welfare
Arnold thinks the Rats will give him something. He's wrong. The "Terminator" will be eating his words within two months on this, tops.
Arnold, is "post-partisanship" in Austrian just another word for dictatorship?
Ain't that sweet! The Republican governor offering the Republicans a twig while trying to sell a $15 billion dollar Arnold-Care program.
Tough on welfare? I think not.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Ain't that sweet! The Republican governor offering the Republicans a twig while trying to sell a $15 billion dollar Arnold-Care program.
Tough on welfare? I think not."
But at least it's something. I can't agree with those who believe Arnold is going to be Xerox copy of a Democrat for the next 4 years. I think a lot of people didn't see this one coming.
It's pretty much been the same script every year. In the January budget proposal, Arnold proposes to cut spending in some area. The Dems (or Maria) scream "foul" and cry about their sacred program. Arnold rolls over and reinstates most dollars in the May Revise.
Here's what the Senior Editiorial Writer for the semi-conservative OC Register had to say about the latest move.
Bipartisan is a one-way street
From Steven Greenhut:(snip)
In today's front-page LA Times news story -- a glorified editorial, really -- reporter Evan Halper writes: "The proposed $465-million reduction in California's welfare budget came two days after the governor promised that his second term would feature 'post-partisan" cooperation."
Shocking! Actually, it is shocking that this governor would propose anything sensible these days, although if he stays true to form he will back away from it in a couple days, and then profusely apologize to everyone for daring to propose this plan.
The true fiscal message for the year will be in the May Revise (in addition to universal healthcare, increasing debt for prisons, and whatever else he proposes between now and then.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.