Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maine required healthy, childless food stamp recipients to work, and ... Guess What Happened?
Hotair ^ | 02/10/2016 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 02/10/2016 1:19:50 PM PST by SeekAndFind

It’s a case of miracles and wonders up in the Pine Tree State, folks. A report from Rachel Sheffield and Robert Rector at the Daily Signal takes a look at welfare programs and efforts to reform them, particularly in the area of food stamps. They note that one of the fastest growing segments of welfare programs over the last decade has been applications for food stamps by ABAWDs, or able bodied adults without children between the ages of 18 and 49. These are folks who are determined to be otherwise able to work but without a source of income. The total cost of these programs in 2014 was $83.1B.

In Maine they took some steps to make the program more efficient last year, much to the dismay of social justice advocates. The Governor put a new program in place which requires ABAWDs desiring food stamps to put in some effort.

In response to the growth in food stamp dependence, Maine's governor, Paul LePage, recently established work requirements on recipients who are without dependents and able-bodied. In Maine, all able-bodied adults without dependents in the food stamp program are now required to take a job, participate in training, or perform community service.

Job openings for lower-skill workers are abundant in Maine, and for those ABAWD recipients who cannot find immediate employment, Maine offers both training and community service slots. But despite vigorous outreach efforts by the government to encourage participation, most childless adult recipients in Maine refused to participate in training or even to perform community service for six hours per week. When ABAWD recipients refused to participate, their food stamp benefits ceased.

You’ll note that the requirements here aren’t exactly onerous. If you do have some sort of employment you’re supposed to report it. If not, the job training programs are free. And if you don’t wish to do either, you can put in six hours of community service per week. That doesn’t exactly take up all your free time, and yet the number of people who rejected all of those options was overwhelming.

So how did that shake out?

In the first three months after Maine's work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents plummeted by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in Dec. 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.

That’s an 80% drop in 90 days. How astounding is that? And it represents a serious savings for the taxpayers in terms of keeping the state’s budget afloat, though the majority of the cash comes from the federal government. But what of all the people who were no longer receiving the benefit? Are they starving? As it turns out, the study shows that a substantial number of recipients were working “off the books.” (And likely not paying taxes on their income either.) That allowed them to qualify for any number of social welfare programs while still having a cash income. Those folks dropped off the rolls quickly rather than have to own up to their income.

Compare that for a moment to New York City, where Mayor de Blasio has essentially thrown welfare reform into reverse.

The number of New Yorkers on welfare is reportedly on the rise, with about 13,000 more people being added to the rolls during the mayor’s first year in office.

The New York Post is reporting that the cash assistance program swelled by 4 percent in 2014.

According to an advanced look at the "Poverty and Progress in New York" report, the jump comes the same year the city added around 90,000 jobs.

Are we to believe that Maine is somehow unique, with an extraordinary number of residents signing up on the dole when they don’t actually qualify or are otherwise able to work but choose not to? Or perhaps New York City is just a mecca for paragons of honesty who would never short sheet the system. Both are unlikely. Welfare reform (or workfare, as we once called it) is being crushed by progressive elements at all levels of government and the results speak for themselves. What’s happening in Maine should be the benchmark for how to move forward rather than a target of criticism by Democrats.

FoodStamps


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Maine
KEYWORDS: abawd; abawds; foodstamp; foodstamps; maine; welfare; work

1 posted on 02/10/2016 1:19:50 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

wow. common sense still works.

why are able bodies people even WITH kids on support.

i didn’t tell them to have the kids and i dont want to pay for them.


2 posted on 02/10/2016 1:21:49 PM PST by dp0622
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I know a couple adults (single) who don’t work and receive Food stamps, medicaid, welfare

They are simply “looking for the right job”


3 posted on 02/10/2016 1:30:34 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
FYI for those of you that don't already know it. Food stamps are issued by the Dept. of Agriculture

Food stamps, like ethanol, is a farm subsidy as much as it is welfare.

4 posted on 02/10/2016 1:34:50 PM PST by lewislynn (Ted Cruz: " I'll never have 'a plane with my name" …(or a Presidential seal))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


5 posted on 02/10/2016 1:38:02 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Many of these guys probably found that these requirements interfered with their busy schedule of off-the-books work.


6 posted on 02/10/2016 1:47:41 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Walmart, Kroger, Safeway, et. al. will all now be gunning for LePage.


7 posted on 02/10/2016 1:53:04 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

Some states are opting to drug test welfare recipients. They are crying unfair and unconstitutional. . However, most employers drug test. Is it unfair or unconstitutional to drug test those who work for their money, but not for those who don’t? ( I believe FL, KY and MO are now requiring drug testing for welfare recipients). If I’m mistaken, then someone please correct me.


8 posted on 02/10/2016 1:55:44 PM PST by Catsrus (I callz 'em as I seez 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Coupling the work requirement to welfare benefits always results in decreased claims.


9 posted on 02/10/2016 2:12:29 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In the future, the democrats will push for an entirely digital currency. The reason will be to stop people hoarding cash and the pursuit of undeclared taxes. But that would hurt the underground economy, a substantial portion of which is democrats. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.


10 posted on 02/10/2016 2:27:48 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
I'm all for drug testing.

I think every public employee as well as every...AS IN ALL... elected representatives should be drug tested.

11 posted on 02/10/2016 10:29:20 PM PST by lewislynn (Ted Cruz: " I'll never have 'a plane with my name" …(or a Presidential seal))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
... reforms could bring the savings to $9.7 billion per year: around $100 per year for every individual currently paying federal income tax

Hmm, so one billion dollars in new Federal spending is around $10 in new taxes or debt for every taxpayer, on average. Ten billion dollars earmarked for this or that of some congressman's favorite program is $100 in tax or debt to each and every tax slave.

So the 616 billion dollar deficit (forecast for the next Federal fiscal year) means each taxpayer must pay taxes or owe future generations another $6160.

Ha! Good luck collecting that, kids. That $6K is on top of $159K each taxpayer has already been obligated to by their benevolent Congress Critters. Ah, but what difference at this point does it make ... money must grow like poppies in the White House garden ... OPM poppies ... Other People's Money ...

12 posted on 02/13/2016 1:12:17 PM PST by Tellurian (Obama's allegiance is to his "father's" dreams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson