Maine Required Childless Adults to Work to Get Food Stamps. Here’s What Happened

[GMDino]

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/08/maine-required-childless-adults-to-work-to-get-food-stamps-heres-what-happened/

Quote:One trillion dollars—that’s how much the government spent last year on means-tested welfare aid, providing cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income individuals. The food stamp program is the nation’s second largest welfare program.

Quote:[/url]The number of food stamp recipients has risen dramatically, from 17.2 million in 2000 to 45.8 million in 2015.

The number of food stamp recipients has risen dramatically, from 17.2 million in 2000 to 45.8 million in 2015. Costs have soared over the same period, from $20.7 billion in 2000 to $83.1 billion in 2014.

The most rapid growth in the food stamp caseload in recent years has been among able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). These are work-capable adult recipients between the ages of 18 and 49 who do not have children or other dependents to support.

The Need for Work Requirements


Since 2008, the food stamp caseload of adults without dependents who are able-bodied has more than doubled nationally, swelling from nearly 2 million recipients in 2008 to around 5 million today. They gained notoriety when Fox News aired a documentary on food stamps featuring 29-year-old Jason Greenslate, a Californian who reported that he spends his time surfing and playing in his rock band, all the while receiving benefits from the food stamp program.

>>> Read the full report by Robert Rector, Rachel Sheffield, and Kevin D. Dayaratna: Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

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.

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.

This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by almost as much, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Quote:Government should aid those in need, but welfare should not be a one-way handout.

The Maine food stamp work requirement is sound public policy. Government should aid those in need, but welfare should not be a one-way handout. Nearly nine out of ten [url=http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/American-Perspectives-on-Welfare-and-Poverty]Americans believe that able-bodied, non-elderly adults who receive cash, food, or housing assistance from the government should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid.

LePage’s reform puts the public’s convictions into action. The Maine reforms recognize that giving welfare to those who refuse to take steps to help themselves is unfair to taxpayers and fosters a harmful dependence among beneficiaries.

Off-the-Books Employment

The Maine work requirement also reduces fraud. The most common type of fraud in welfare involves “off the books” employment. In food stamps, as in other welfare programs, benefits go down as earnings rise.

But “off the books” employment is rarely reported to the welfare office; hiding earnings enables a recipient to “double-dip,” getting full welfare benefits he is ineligible to receive while simultaneously receiving earnings from an unreported job.

A work requirement substantially reduces welfare fraud because insisting a recipient be in the welfare office periodically interferes with holding a hidden job. Recipients cannot be in two places at once. Faced with a work requirement, many recipients with hidden jobs simply leave the rolls. No doubt, a significant part of the rapid caseload decline in Maine involves flushing fraudulent double-dippers out of the welfare system.

Government data show that many adults without children on food stamps use their own funds counter-productively. Over half of able-bodied adults without dependents regularly smoke tobacco; those who smoke consume on average 19 packs of cigarettes per month at an estimated monthly cost of $111. These individuals rely on the taxpayers to pay for their food while they spend their own money on cigarettes.

The federal government should establish work requirements similar to Maine’s for the 4.7 million able-bodied adults without dependents currently receiving food stamps nationwide. If the caseload drops at the same rate it did in Maine (which is very likely), taxpayer savings would be over $8.4 billion per year. Further reforms could bring the savings to $9.7 billion per year: around $100 per year for every individual currently paying federal income tax.

Some may argue that individual state governments, and not the federal government, should choose whether to require work in the food stamp program. But over 90 percent of food stamp funding comes from the federal government. Since the federal government pays for nearly the entire food stamp program, it has the obligation to establish the principles on which the program operates.

Requiring work for able-bodied welfare recipients was a key element of President Ronald Reagan’s welfare philosophy. It was the foundation of the successful welfare reform in the 1990s. But the idea of work in welfare has fallen by the wayside. It is time to reanimate the principle.

[*Nately120*]

Your thread title sounds like clickbait.

[GMDino]

(02-10-2016, 03:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Your thread title sounds like clickbait.

As long as the title fits in the number of allowed characters I just copy and paste it from the original.  But I agree because I thought that too when I first saw it.

[*michaelsean*]

Wow in the northeast no less.

[GMDino]

(02-10-2016, 04:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wow in the northeast no less.

Might be one of the few things he has done that made sense...and worked.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I've always been a strong proponent of those getting aid that are capable should be doing something, whether it's something that prepares them for a job or community service work.

Nice to see an example of it working well.

It's also interesting they the D's are trying really hard to get this guy impeached.

[BmorePat87]

(02-10-2016, 04:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wow in the northeast no less.

Maine certainly is unique in the NE states.

Sound policy and it looks like it is working. If you have no dependents and can work, you should. If they honestly would rather not work, go to training, or do 6 measly hours of service a week for money, they're not worth helping. 

[StLucieBengal]

I like this.

Make these mofos work. .

[GMDino]

(02-10-2016, 05:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I've always been a strong proponent of those getting aid that are capable should be doing something, whether it's something that prepares them for a job or community service work.

Nice to see an example of it working well.

It's also interesting they the D's are trying really hard to get this guy impeached.

He has other "issues" that the democrats don't like.

[fredtoast]

I am betting a large majority of Democrats would support something like this.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-11-2016, 06:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am betting a large majority of Democrats would support something like this.

Haha, ok ok.
Democrats in his own state tried to stop this.

[*bfine32*]

(02-11-2016, 08:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Haha, ok ok.
Democrats in his own state tried to stop this.

He meant the really awesome Democrats, not the regular ones. 

[GMDino]

(02-11-2016, 08:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Haha, ok ok.
Democrats in his own state tried to stop this.

The problem is Democrats in office are no better than Republicans in off ice in that they want things done "their" way.  I took Fred to me Democrat voters...sane people.

The Gov up there has many, many issues that should be brought to light...but this was a good program.  And it passed.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-11-2016, 11:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: The problem is Democrats in office are no better than Republicans in off ice in that they want things done "their" way.  I took Fred to me Democrat voters...sane people.

The Gov up there has many, many issues that should be brought to light...but this was a good program.  And it passed.

If democrat voters are sane then why do they keep electing progressives..... Who go against these type of reforms?

[GMDino]

(02-11-2016, 11:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If democrat voters are sane then why do they keep electing progressives..... Who go against these type of reforms?

Probably because you call everyone who doesn't share your libertarian/conservative/anti-savage point of view "progressive".

[StLucieBengal]

(02-11-2016, 11:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Probably because you call everyone who doesn't share your libertarian/conservative/anti-savage point of view "progressive".

I didnt call Bernie sanders a progressive.    Nor did I call Jim Webb one either.     I base it off policy.

I have also never called Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul a progressive.    Rubio has crossed over into progressivism.

[Benton]

(02-11-2016, 11:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If voters are sane then why do they keep electing progressives..... Who go against these type of reforms?

[Vlad]

(02-11-2016, 06:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am betting a large majority of Democrats would support something like this.

(02-11-2016, 08:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Haha, ok ok.
Democrats in his own state tried to stop this.

Read the last paragraph....

Requiring work for able-bodied welfare recipients was a key element of President Ronald Reagan’s welfare philosophy. It was the foundation of the successful welfare reform in the 1990s. But the idea of work in welfare has fallen by the wayside. It is time to reanimate the principle.

Ya wanna guess who stopped it then? Forcing people to work was "oppressive"...haha, there's that word again.

Historic Opposition to Workfare

President Obama has created a firestorm by overturning the work requirements in the welfare reform law, but this is just the latest step in a long history of liberal opposition to work requirements in welfare. For example, welfare reform under President Richard Nixon was blocked by left-wing opposition to work requirements. Throughout the 1980s, liberals in Congress blocked President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to require AFDC recipients to work.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/obamas-end-run-on-welfare-reform-part-one-understanding-workfare

[GMDino]

(02-12-2016, 12:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I didnt call Bernie sanders a progressive.    Nor did I call Jim Webb one either.     I base it off policy.

I have also never called Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul a progressive.   Rubio has crossed over into progressivism.

(02-11-2016, 11:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Probably because you call everyone who doesn't share your libertarian/conservative/anti-savage point of view "progressive".

[GMDino]

(02-12-2016, 12:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I didnt call Bernie sanders a progressive.    Nor did I call Jim Webb one either.     I base it off policy.

I have also never called Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul a progressive.    Rubio has crossed over into progressivism.

These are the times you called someone a progressive or blamed progressives for something...anything...on just the first two pages of THIS sits's PNR section.

Then I got bored and stopped quoting them.

You have an obsession and a warped sense of relatity which combines to make everyone you disagree with, wait for it....

(05-16-2015, 05:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Fair enough...  It's getting to be a more stark comparison.   Which is what we need... Dems are going more socialism    Plus the GOP is pulling more classic conservative.   The progressives are getting easier to spot

(05-18-2015, 09:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Large provisions of the bulk data collection go away June 1.    Plus the court decision that it was unconstitutional.   Yes it's a problem, and yes we can crawl out from under.  

Or we could just choose your way and give up and let the progressives lord over us

(05-18-2015, 09:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: After reading this I looked at the Green Party issues and I see lots of progressive ideas there....  And if that's the case than a classic liberal would be oil to the progressive water.    I just don't see classic liberalism displayed.  

Seems green party has been the uber progressives.

(05-19-2015, 01:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Democrats ran away from classic liberalism 100 years ago.   As far as the GOP goes they are having a classic conservative revival.   Which ironically they are teaming up with classic liberals .  

Dems just keep going more and more to socialism.   What's crazy is that they are leaving the progressives behind lol.  But progressivism is just a gateway to socialism.

(05-21-2015, 09:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Vaccines = not progressive

Forcing people to get vaccinations because you think you know better = progressive

Your learning =)

(05-25-2015, 08:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Progressives vs the rest of us

Lol

(05-25-2015, 08:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes it's unlikely any shenanigans will be at play.  But you never know when that maniac gets in control.   We already have a built in delivery system for a bio weapon.   The flu shot.     We have a history of rounding people up we think is a threat .... Blacks, Germans, japs.... Now the progressives in both parties are targeting the tea party.    .... How soon until it's a group you think is important enough?  

Any time our ability to make our own decisions is limited we have to stand up.

(05-27-2015, 12:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: With them now wanting to play with the big boys they will have to spend quite a bit to get their forces up to snuff.   Not to mention the land grabs they are taking in the south China sea.    And building military bases on them.  

Their economy will take more of a hit now having to pay for the military.   They keep increasing.  Double digit increases each year will change things quick.  

Not to mention this ridiculous trade bill obama and the progressives want....

(06-01-2015, 03:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Walker and Rubio are hurting him badly.

Only 2 of the progressives will make the real race.  

Walker, Rubio, bush, christie

1 religious

Cruz, Carson, huckabee, Santorum

Rand's candidacy depends on youth and independents in the end.

(06-01-2015, 06:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not fair to say liberals.   This is all progressives and socialists agenda.    And to answer your question...  No they actually think it's ok.   

(06-04-2015, 04:56 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How will this bring back jobs?  

It will kill the new homes market.  Since it's a tax on new Items.

This is a scary tax because this could crush the economy when its raised too high which it will be by progressives.  

Yes it forces everyone to pay... I believe staples are excluded or there is a rebate for what they think staples cost...  

I think i could live with a VAT if there were 0 income taxes.   It's the only way it would work without magnifying the current problems with the tax code.  

In that scenario a VAT is much more realistic than an income tax.  Replace all federal taxes with a VAT.  That would encourage spending.  

The politicians still need to cut.

(06-04-2015, 05:30 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And as far as Santorum.... He needs to Just stop it.    Get substantive and either seperate himself from the other progressives Bush/Rubio/Christie/walker or get out.

(06-04-2015, 11:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Add CNN too.   

And I agree they are all a mess.   They are pushing progressives or neocons.   

(06-08-2015, 01:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah lots of progressives in both parties.

Black man that accomplished nothing vs white woman that accomplished nothing.  

White guilt and fear of being called a racist is what got obama elected.   And the media not challenging him.... If you think anything else played a factor your dreaming.

*Just wanted to cite a little racism in there too...because you believe nothing else mattered, in two national elections, except Obama was black. 

(06-09-2015, 11:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: In Richmonds link there were specific numbers on what the U.S. provided them....  I wanna say 57-60% of their steel/iron .... (Could be off a little, but I am in the ballpark of a reasonable discussion).     Once FDR passed and used the export control act then followed up with an embargo....  That backed them into a corner.  

Btw a side note....  progressives doing what progressives do.... FDR passed a law and got his pen and his phone and did what he wanted.   He followed in Wilson's ideology of centralizing power with the executive.     Now we have the same problems today.... Yet no one wants to acknowledge where these all came .....

(06-09-2015, 11:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The argument between bush and obama is funny because they have so many similar policies....  Just slight differences where they spend the money.   But they both spend, both bailout, and both have been negligent.  

Both progressives....   Both spend like crazy.    Neither could quit spending when it was obvious they were wrong.

(06-10-2015, 02:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Never said anything about mass killings.   Yes big difference between what FDR and what hitler did...  But we still rounded up a specific group of people nationwide and trapped them in camps because they were themselves.    Progressives have a history of this in america.    

But yes your right....  There is a diffence between Hitler and FDR/Wilson.... But we certainly don't treat FDR and Wilson the same as we do .... Southern white slave owners who also rounded up a particular group ..... Not sure what's worse.... That private citizens did this ..... Or the federal government.... Led by men who believe the power should be taken away from the legislature and given to the executive branch .....

And glad you had fun at the game ))

(06-10-2015, 02:25 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Progressive foreign Policy vs Founders Foreign Policy.  

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/remaking-the-world-progressivism-and-american-foreign-policy