Posted on 09/25/2015 8:38:59 AM PDT by Hojczyk
“Well, the days of being quiet are gone,” he wrote. “We will be submitting a bill to the next legislative session asking that a website be created containing the names, addresses, length of time on assistance and the benefits being collected by every individual on the dole.
“After all, the public has a right to know how its money is being spent,” Macdonald said.
"Mayor MacDonald is wasting everyone's time,” Democratic candidate Ben Chin told FoxNews.com in an email. “He's never passed a single policy at the local level, let alone in the state legislature. Resorting to publicly shaming poor people is a sad, desperate act.”
Maine, though, is no stranger to controversial restrictions on welfare. Though the program commonly known as “welfare” uses federal dollars, states have the authority to set conditions on the funding, and Maine Gov. Paul LePage has pursued such reforms including drug-testing some recipients.
Macdonald defended his plan in an interview with the Press Herald.
“Go into a grocery store. They flaunt it,” he said of welfare recipients. “I’m not sorry. I hope this makes people think twice about applying for welfare.”
In his column, Macdonald also said he’d introduce a bill limiting assistance to 60 months total.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Seriesly, Employers ought to be able to view the this data to determine wages. Oh wait, that would be raaaaaaaacist.
“Supplemental income”? Uh-huh. Seems legit.
If someone doesn’t want their privacy invaded, they shouldn’t be applying for welfare. Technically, the welfare system shouldn’t even exist at all, being that it steals taxpayer dollars and puts them towards people who do nothing other than vote Democrat.
Now also publish a list of everything else the taxpayers' money is spent on.
I think that these are administered in offices at the local level. So one would expect that the local authorities should be able to tell who is gaming the system Why aren't they?
I don’t this is right. What about hardworking people who are laid off and need something to feed their families? Why shame them? If you do this then do it for the ones who have been on it for a long time. Those are the real problem.
I don’t think this is right. What about hardworking people who are laid off and need something to feed their families? Why shame them? If you do this then do it for the ones who have been on it for a long time. Those are the real problem.
Those administrators are probably paid Feds....the more on the dole the more they are needed.
Don’t kill the job. :-)
This is not private money and the program is voluntary. All disbursements should be subject to close scrutiny by the taxpayers.
Welfare programs may seem personal to the recipient but the fact is that this is public money.
And yes, I do believe all who receive public funds should have to pass drug tests. Taxpayers usually have to pass a drug test to get a job to pay the taxes that fund these programs.
I'm not an anti-welfare person as I know there are many who require our help. That said, the ones who game the system need a flogging.
An extremely stupid idea.
I doubt that shaming the shameless will have the desired effect but there’s got to be a better way weaning folks off of gov’t dole than this
Not at all; public assistance is perfectly justified for the people who really need it...unfortunately, there is a huge segment of people who think they are entitled to a life of leisure bought for them by the hard-working taxpayers...those are the bloodsuckers I want to ‘shame’, as you put it.
Then why the need to shame those who really need the help by posting their names and addresses on a website?
unfortunately, there is a huge segment of people who think they are entitled to a life of leisure bought for them by the hard-working taxpayers...those are the bloodsuckers I want to ‘shame’, as you put it.
But that's not the plan. Apparently anyone who is on the "dole", as he puts it, is a bloodsucker and gets their name on the website. Welfare-scamming parasite? On the website. Genuine needy mother with small kids drawing assistance? On the website. Working mother getting foodstamps for her children? On the website. Drawing unemployment? On the website. Ninety years old with Alzheimers and in a nursing home paid for by Medicaid? On the website. This does nothing to go after those who are scamming the system. It's a deliberate attempt to keep anyone from applying for any assistance at all. And I guess that going after everyone is easier than trying to find the minority who are cheating the system.
Why publish the mayor’s address and phone number. He was voted into office which is different than getting on the dole. Fine if you want his budget published which is already free for the asking.
I’m all for publishing the welfare roll. Property tax records are made public and some even show your house plans. Criminal records are made public. Marriages and deaths are published every day in the newspaper. It’s my money and I want to know how it’s being spent. The mayor should also include how many years the person has been living off my tax dollars. Maybe that will encourage a time limit rather than generation after generation being supported by the productive citizens of the community.
If I ran things - you fall on hard times and we’ll give you 6 months of welfare but you better show you’re seriously looking for a job. Then it’s 2 years before you can apply again at which time you can have another 6 months. After that, you’re on your own.
Shouldn't the people know where those spending their tax dollars live?
If I ran things - you fall on hard times and we’ll give you 6 months of welfare but you better show you’re seriously looking for a job. Then it’s 2 years before you can apply again at which time you can have another 6 months. After that, you’re on your own.
That's more generous than this bozo. From the looks of his plan anyone getting a dime from the government for any reason gets their address published. He obviously wants nobody applying for anything.
You make a very good point; I would prefer that the government use resources to root out those who are scamming the welfare system, but they are not going to do that, as they depend on them for votes/support to stay in power. Also, if they are not means-testing welfare recipients, how do you know that they are a minority? Finally, as I’m sure you know, one of the first laws of economics is that the more you subsidize something, the more you will get of it; conversely, the more you penalize (i.e. tax) something, the less you will get of it. Today in America we penalize the hard-working and productive through progressive taxation, while subsidizing indolence nad laziness through a too-generous welfare system. People who actually need public assistance probably realize that the scammers are hurting them as much as anybody; my guess is many of them would not be averse to ‘outing’ the scammers by publishing their names (NOT addresses or other personal information) on a website. And if you don’t like this idea, what would you do to stop the cheating? It’s infuriating.
What would you do with the names and addresses of those who receive public assistance if you had it?
Start snooping? on somebody's family that you know? embarrass them in public? or shame their children in school? What good will you do with that information, hm? Turn yourself into self-appointed welfare police?
The taxes levied on you for that support is not voluntarily given, it is your uniformly shared responsibility under the law. We have administrators appointed to oversee that the ones receiving it are qualified by the laws you elected legislators to make, and you have the freedom to examine them for their performance in executing their function. Beyond that, it is none of your business.
The money used is not being stolen, unless someone who receives it is cheating, which again comes under the purview of its administrators.
If you don't like the system, go ahead, voice your opinion, and elect legislators who will change the system. But you're not going to get rid of some form of public assistance. You can only change the size of the budget and the conditions under which it is distributed.
The motivation behind publishing individual names and addresses only targets the recipients for capricious unlawful individual vilification and snooping by busybodies who will use any device to whittle down or eliminate claimants, which is invasion of the individual's privacy and circumstances. It can affect treatment by their neighbors, potential employers, and insurers.
That they are on welfare should be of the nature of a privileged communication only between the applicant and the welfare officer, not open to the general public for misuse. That is not liberalism. It's just common decency in applying the Golden Rule.
****************************
The taxes are not voluntarily given, but what happens to our money is "none of our business"?
I just said it was, and the method and people accountable to you for it are the local welfare organization and its administrators. The people responsible for it are your elected officials.
The local recipients are not within your responsibility nor scope of investigation, and they are not accountable to you. Snooping into other citizens' individual privacy is not your business.
When you have earned your own keep, paid your own tax burden for the benefits you've received, participated in local politics, voted, and stayed within the law, you've done everything you need to do to be able to attend to your own business and keep your nose out of others'. IMHO.
Offering your opinion on FR is, as it is to me, a privilege. Go right ahead. The privilege is free, but the forum is not without cost.
***********************
LOL! Thanks. I'll remember that on October 1st. I hope that you will, too.
Every month is greatly appreciated. If you haven’t already, join me.
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.