State Senate votes to set time limit on welfare benefits
LANSING - With more than 12,600 welfare recipients and their children poised to lose monthly checks effective Oct. 1, supporters of a strict 48-month benefits limit say its time to end endless entitlements.
But critics said legislation approved in the Michigan Senate Wednesday leaves unanswered the fate of about one in seven families suddenly without benefits 12 weeks from now.
“Do we know what we’re doing and do we know the people who will be impacted?” asked Sen. Morris Hood, D-Detroit, “What’s going to happen to these folks? Has anyone thought of that?”
The Senate, by a 24-12 vote, approved a House bill imposing the strict 48-month limit.
There is no grandfather clause in the measure, which tightens a 2006 benefits cap that allowed extensions if a recipient was in job training or unable to work. That means most recipients who are already past 48 months on Oct. 1 will be cut off.
Gov. Rick Snyder supports the bill that would save some $77 million. Recipients could no longer apply to the Department of Human Services for an extension past the time limit. Nor could DHS make allowances for those it determines should be exempt from work requirements.
Rep. Ken Horn, R-Frankenmuth and the bill’s sponsor, says welfare should be a safety net, not a “lifestyle.”
One change the Senate did make was to allow recipients with a disabled spouse or child to apply for an exemption from the time limit. “They’re in situations not of their own doing and they require care,” said Sen. Judy Emmons, R-Sheridan.
Emmons said the point of the legislation is to give case workers less flexibility in authorizing benefits beyond 48 months.
“Some would say they were very lenient in how they gave extensions,” said Emmons, chairwoman of the Senate Families, Seniors and Human Services Committee. “No one ever expected it to be a lifetime entitlement. Hopefully we protected the most vulnerable. That was the goal.”
The measure does make a change that welfare advocates sought for years. It allows recipients to earn more money on the job without jeopardizing their benefits. A family with $950 in monthly earned income, for example, would still be eligible for $224 in assistance.
The House must now approve the changes before they take effect.
The Family Independence Program’s current caseload is about 82,000. After October, that will drop to 70,000, where analysts say it should stabilize as recipients go off the rolls and new cases come on.
Advocates said the strict time limits would place vulnerable children at risk because economic conditions or personal barriers prevented their parents from becoming self-supportive.
Add the 48-month limit to previously approved reductions in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor and “we are really throwing new barriers in the way of families trying to work their way to independence,’’ said Michigan League for Human Services analyst Karen Holcomb-Merrill.
“We should be encouraging these families, not finding new ways to make it harder to reach economic independence,’’ she said.
Emmons said caseworkers at local DHS offices are already informally telling those already at the 48-month time limit to prepare for the change.
Under other provisions in the bill, households would no longer receive benefit credit for a 19-year-old, full-time high school student living in the home. DHS would have to reassess a recipient’s eligibility for every 12 months instead of every 24 months.
Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment that would have provided for extensions for recipients living in counties where the unemployment rate exceeds 25 percent of the statewide average.
Contact Peter Luke at 517-487-8888 ext. 235 or email him at pluke@boothmichigan.com.
Comments
2020
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 12:42 a.m.
Can you use the Bridge Card, to go over the bridge? example: Canada.
trs80
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
I know this will sound harsh and many will not agree... It is not the responsibility of the working class to provide the non-working/under employed class with assistance. If you cannot afford to provide for yourself than you should not have children. Its a simple matter of being responsible, if you are not responsible enough to understand the costs involved in raising a family then you should attempt to procreate. If you have never worked and contributed to the system in which you ask money from then you more than anything are not/should not be entitled to assistance. I apologize in advance for my lack of remorse. Im sure the Ann Arbor hippies will flag this for removal.
Basic Bob
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 10:13 p.m.
@tim, Are you talking about NAFTA? US House supporters were 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats US Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law in 1993. Or maybe the teaparty signed a secret deal with China on top of a bridge to nowhere. I bet that's it.
tim
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 10:03 p.m.
What about the families that had good jobs before the Republicans voted in an international trade deal that sent those jobs away.
KMHall
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.
If only things were this simple. Kids "deserving" to starve has nothing to do with what their parents should have done or whether they shirked some responsibility. I don't align myself with a particular religion, but I think that Christianity had something to say about the responsibilities of the fortunate with respect to those who are less so.
John Q
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
My favorite comment was from Senator Jansen (R) who said that government doesn't have enough money to be all things for all people. This from a guy who voted to increase almost everyone's taxes to pay for a $1.6 billion tax cut. Jansen can find money for tax cuts for some of the state's wealthiest business owners but can't find a few million dollars to help the state's poorest residents. What a guy.
Steve Pepple
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
Please stick to debating the issue without name-calling.
Enso
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:41 p.m.
It's telling none of you right-wingers will answer my question. You keep talking in platitudes and abstraction.
KMHall
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.
It seems that they are sadly ignorant of complexity of the psychology of the poor. I believe that they are also unaware of the effects on our economy of people like the Koch brothers. Over simplification. "Just get a job," indeed.
Karen Hart
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:35 p.m.
Are Republicans so heartless as to not care what happens to people who have no other options? I fear for our society when we completely discard people, then criticize them for being in our way.
j5
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 8:32 p.m.
If you really think that the majority of people on welfare are there because they have no other options then I've got a bridge to sell you in Alaska. Hell, I've got several friends and acquaintances that I know of who are on some form of assistance so that they have more time for Xbox. Republicans may be so heartless but why are Democrats so unwilling to recognize an obvious free rider problem? Admit it, the four year cap is a pretty darn good solution which brings the system back to being the safety net that it was intended to be rather than the lifestyle that it is. You guys have an inexplicable unwillingness to acknowledge rational human behavior for what it is. Are you really trying to tell me that a reasonable person can be on the dole for four years and still not have enough time to get a plan together to be self sufficient? I'm not going to bite on that argument especially considering a couple periods in the past 6 months where the company I work for was actually having trouble finding enough people for no experience necessary $20k per year jobs.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:51 a.m.
For a long time, Michigan has been the only state in the country without welfare limits. And for a long time, we've had unusually high unemployment. Something tells me those two facts are connected. A paying job is not beneath people.
Maxwell
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:44 a.m.
Yup - that's why McDonald employees media age is 7.5 years older now than ten years ago. And yes - the more union jobs there are then the stronger an economy is.
1bit
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 10:58 a.m.
C'mon - we all know correlation is not causation. Our economic fate in Michigan is directly related to the success/failure of the Big 3. UAW membership is up over the past year and Michigan's economy has improved, I don't think the former caused the latter and I doubt you would either. Limits are fine by me but really, unless you actually help the person get a job, the whole premise of welfare is pointless (i.e. it's that whole "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life" thing).
Basic Bob
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 5:16 a.m.
Some people refuse to take a job unless they can get union protection. Why take a risk?
snapshot
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 3:36 a.m.
When folks don't have anything to lose, dying in the fight isn't a big deal. Viet Nam was lost because they had nothing to lose. Protestors in the Middle East are willing to die for their cause because they have nothing to lose. do you think all those union members protesting 3% cuts or contributions to health care would be making a scene if they knew a percentage of them would die in the protest? I think not, they have too much to lose, life is good and it will still be good after the cuts. We are paying terrorists to stop shooting at our soldiers and come over to our side, we are giving billions to corrupt governments in Pakistan, Afganistan, and building their infrastructure, power plants, etc and yet "we won't take care of our own". What does that say about us? We're just a political hair from the same killing in the streets we claim to despise. Remember Kent State? It won't be the affluent and middle class that will suffer, it will be the weak, disabled, mentally ill, and children who pay the price. No good ever came from continuing to kick the little guy.
snapshot
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 3:23 a.m.
All about the children? It's always easier to kick the little guy......let's not forget government pensions are still 58 Billion dollars UNFUNDED' and public unions don't want to give up any of THEIR entitlements or benefits either. Who do you think is really sucking the life out of the economy? It's not the poor, or the rich, it's the public sector. But then, it's easier and safer to kick the guy who can't kick back.
Maxwell
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:28 a.m.
I meant due - sorry
Maxwell
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:38 a.m.
The same reason our roads are crap - lack of revenue do to the rich owning the government and not paying their fair share. You can claim government employees and union members are lazy and over paid but most people know better.
Basic Bob
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:55 a.m.
Sorry, union dues are used to perpetuate the privilege of the public employees. Their clout in the legislature is strong enough to prevent meaningful reform, all that is left to cut is entitlements to the poor. Public union employees are NOT poor, public union retirees are in fact fabulously wealthy. Democrats blame the tea party for trying to create wealth and balance a budget. Too bad nobody on the left side has any positive ideas for improvement. Things must be just peachy!
snapshot
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:27 a.m.
So about that 58 BILLION dollars Max, where do you propose that comes from? Union dues?
Maxwell
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:10 a.m.
I think multinational corporations that ship jobs to China and hire lobbyist to write the tax code are what is sucking the life out the economy.
1bit
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 3:17 a.m.
The bill is a cop-out. It is saying we don't want to pay for people not working and we want to incentivize working, but we're not going to help you get there. I disagree with the notion that the poor remain poor by choice (at least for the vast majority of poor). While you can't stay on welfare forever, there needs to be a clear path to a job (through retraining, etc) to help you get off of it once you are unfortunate enough to get on it. It is very dangerous and costly for a society to create a desperate underclass.
KMHall
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:41 p.m.
Thank you. Even if the conservatives have hearts of stone, it will hit them in the wallet eventually.
DonBee
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 2:52 a.m.
Over 100 years ago we had "poor farms" where people when they did not have the funds to do anything else. I have to wonder if that was such a bad system, raising your own food, learning a work ethic and job skills. I am not advocating the return to poor farms, but I wonder if anyone has seriously thought about what it would mean if some of the idle farm land in the state was turned into say 20 family communities with the ability to grow organic food locally? I am not smart enough to know if it would work or how to set it up, or if it would be considered an OK thing. I know I would prefer to subsistance farm vs taking welfare, but that is my personal ethic. I suspect I will get royally roasted for suggesting this.
Maxwell
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:03 a.m.
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ended slavery and involuntary servitude - and that's one you can thank a certain Republican for - back in the days when they could say with a measure of pride they led this country.
Maxwell
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 1:51 a.m.
Now if only we could repeal those child labor laws...
Maxwell
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:32 a.m.
Don't forget time and a half for over time... And two days off a week... And worker's comp... Those damn Unions really did screw up this country....
KMHall
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:39 p.m.
..and minimum wage.
Oregon39_Michigan7
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 1:11 a.m.
Wow, first Michigan is the first State to cut unemployment benefits, now State assistance for the poorest of the poor? I'm guessing that 90-95% of people receiving State assistance ("welfare") aren't happy with the "lifestyle" or didn't choose the "lifestyle". If you think living off of a bridge card for food and receiving a $200 DHS check every month is riding the "gravy train", you're wrong. If you don't believe me try buying a month's worth of food for four people and spend less than $200. When my neighbor can't feed their family or for heat, that's not just their problem, that's our problem as a community. Some people see dollar signs, others see human dignity. And to the first comment that reads "I always see people buying steaks, candy, cigarettes, and lotto tickets with their food stamps" I'm calling you out. No, you haven't. (PS You can't buy cigarettes, lotto tickets, or prepared food with a bridge card). #Pre-emptiveStrike.
Oregon39_Michigan7
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:16 a.m.
DonBee, I'm sorry but I 100% disagree with you and believe you are incorrect. Michigan was the first State (I believe there are now 2-3) to cut unemployment benefits, paid by the State, from 26 to 20 weeks. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/politics/29michigan.html" rel='nofollow'>www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/politics/29michigan.html</a> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/michigan-unemployment-extension-compromise_n_840088.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/michigan-unemployment-extension-compromise_n_840088.html</a> (read all the way until the end where it provides a link to other States considering this measure, backing up my point that Michigan was the first State to slash unemployment benefits). Keep in mind that unemployment benefits are paid through payroll taxes by every employed person - so after 15 years if you lose your job you have a safety net. So Michigan's radical change isn't "middle of the pack" as you suggest. Also, again with a bridge card you cannot buy cigs, beer, liquor, prepared food. If you say "there are cases where some small markets help people [around this]" then they (the market-person) needs to be arrested for committing fraud. Snoop-d-double-o-single-g, I doubt the vast majority of those receiving state assistnace waste their cash on "smokes, liquor[,] and lotto tickets." If you are distrubed by people using taxpayer money for food are you also disturbed by the small business owner who uses tax deduction for a "business" computer but uses it 100% of the time for personal reasons? I think that happens just as often as a the bridge card user buying steaks and Maine lobster tails with their state assistance.
Susanne
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:12 a.m.
Shopping at Meijer I see it all the time. People will pull money off of their card (money that I'm assuming is supposed to be helping them pay rent, buy clothes, diapers etc) and spend 95% of it on alcohol or cigarettes. Working at Meijer for about a year I saw the same people doing it every month and it pisses me off that my taxes are going towards that. Not only that, but those same people buy nothing but chips, ice cream, pop, hardly anything that could be considered healthy.
DonBee
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 2:49 a.m.
O-M - I would suggest you do a little research on the length of unemployment in other states before you make your "first" statement. I think you will find that Michigan at 20 weeks is in the middle of the pack. You can with the help of the cashier buy anything you want with a bridge card. You cannot legally buy those things with a bridge card, but there are cases where some small markets help people spend the money on their bridge card, and it is not always on legal items. I suspect the percentage is small, but any fraud on the cards, is bad for the image of the program.
snoopdog
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 2:23 a.m.
They of course pay cash for smokes,liquor and lotto tickets and use the bridge card for food and nice steaks. I think most reasonable people find it disturbing that people using taxpayers money for food are wasting their cash on smokes, liquor and lotto tickets. If they have enough cash to buy those things then perhaps they should not be getting taxpayer aid ? Good Day
stunhsif
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.
"But critics said legislation approved in the Michigan Senate Wednesday leaves unanswered the fate of about one in seven families suddenly without benefits 12 weeks from now." Suddenly without benefits 12 weeks from now ? They've been getting them for perhaps more than 4 years so it appears that none of these recipients were suddenly motivated over that time period to secure an income. Perhaps they will become suddenly motivated over the next 12 weeks to find one ,but based on the past 4 years, probably not !
braggslaw
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:37 a.m.
Four years is very generous Plenty of time to make changes, goto school etc
j5
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 10:53 p.m.
@KMHall So are you going to expand upon that or just tell us that it's far too complex for our simple minds? That's a cop-out not a counterpoint.
KMHall
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:37 p.m.
Over simplification of a huge problem.
snoopdog
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 11:27 p.m.
"Advocates said the strict time limits would place vulnerable children at risk because economic conditions or personal barriers prevented their parents from becoming self-supportive" You call 4 years of welfare a "strict time limit", you cannot be serious ! ""We should be encouraging these families, not finding new ways to make it harder to reach economic independence,'' she said." Nothing will encourage one to find and secure an income faster than a hungry stomach and parched lips ! Good Day
j5
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 10:55 p.m.
@David Nothing makes a good point better than useless rhetoric, amirite?
stunhsif
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:41 a.m.
@David, The TeaPublican camps have not been able to find anyone who wants to move in because they make you work for your three squares a day !
David Briegel
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.
Gee, maybe we could put them in TeaPublican indoctrination camps. Everyone likes camps!
Enso
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.
Please, the typical right-winger who is going to be all for this... PLEASE answer me this question: What is going to happen to these people and their children if we completely cut them off?
j5
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.
Enso thinks there are only 40 hours to a work week... O_0 Your scenario is ridiculous and proposes that a person is barely working full time AND the lowest paying job possible AND decided to have kids that they couldn't afford AND doesn't have the other parent in the picture in person or in child support payments AND can't get their act together within four years. Why not also throw out that he/she has one eye and a bum leg while you are at it? I hate to burst your pity bubble but there are plenty of no experience required jobs available that pay more than that and there is no rule that says the work week is only 40 hours long. If things are really tight there are always plenty of one off jobs available in the evenings and weekends for an extra hundred bucks here or there. Are you above that kind of work? I'm not, I've done it on numerous occasions to make ends meet and I've never taken a dime in assistance.
paxsolace
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.
I agree with Enso. Try making it on minimum wage and paying for child care while you're at work. Not everyone is born into a "good" life. Most of these recipients are doing the best they can. I try to help out too (giving rides, sharing a meal, donating clothes, etc.) Budget yourself on welfare for one month--see what you can buy grocery wise, live where you can live and tell me you feel safe. Can you walk in their shoes and for how long?
j5
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 8:20 p.m.
Simple, they'll go find jobs. Don't tell me there aren't any because my place of employment has plenty of $20k entry level jobs with no prior experience required that we almost always have trouble filling. Even the temp agencies we've worked through have had a couple shortages in the past 6 months. This isn't rocket science. Everything in economics can be described by a curve. If you offer a free ride at any level there are going to be a number of people who take you up on that offer. I can understand that it's not easy to find a job overnight but a FOUR YEAR LONG safety net is more than enough time for any able bodied person to find a job.
trs80
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
Survival of the fittest. Best way to improve the species.
Enso
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.
Really Snoop? (And yes, I know that you haven't answered my question, but I'll humor you) So you think they'll just 'find jobs?' Did you know that the cheapest apartment I've come across is about $500 per month, not including electricity, water, heat, or ac? So let's up that to $600 per month. The type of job they'll find is minimum wage. So let's say they work at 40 hours a week making minimum wage and bring home 80% of their pay after taxes. That's a bit less than $950 per month. $600 goes to rent. That leaves them $350 per month. That's less than $100 per week. That means no car. So they take the bus. An Ann Arbor bus pass costs about $30 per month. That is one person. Let's say they have a couple kids, three bus passes. That leaves them with $260 per month. Let's say they all eat a measly $5 per day in food. At 3 people that's $450 per month. Oops... we're in the hole. Because we wanted to eat everyday we ended up in the whole a couple hundred dollars a month. I guess we can't afford to eat. And what about clothes? And school supplies? And health insurance? And field trips? And phones? Come on Snoop... either you are incredibly out of touch with reality or you're just not thinking. This is the point you right wingers don't understand... Even while working 40 hours a week you can't afford to live in this country!
snoopdog
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 11:45 p.m.
Enso, These people will find jobs, may not be the job they want to work but there are jobs out there. They can also draw support from family, friends and their church or better yet, why don't you adopt a family just coming off of 4 years on welfare and pay their way for another 4 years ? Good Day
Enso
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 11:25 p.m.
It's simple Anthony. It's a simple, one line question. Enough with the right wing rhetoric and dodging the question. You are talking about people's lives now. And the lives of CHILDREN. Answer the question Anthony: What is going to happen to these people and their children if we completely cut them off?
Enso
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 11:17 p.m.
Answer the question, Anthony.
Anthony
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 10:24 p.m.
And what if we continue to let them sit indefinitely on the state system? Wouldn't that cause a large financial strain on the state in time? Why should I even work?
godsbreath64
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 10 p.m.
The GOP economics is the bringing back of centuries of slavery, pure and simple. Get ready for the rise in crime. Anthony, it is conspicuous that governments around the globe are dealing in austerity without that GOP 70s show "culture of welfare" yammering. Why not come clean about the culture of High Crimes, War Crimes and Sarah Plain' that alone contributed to this state and let the children be nourished?
KMHall
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:35 p.m.
Wish I owned stock in a chain link fence company. Won't the Haves will need more and more protection as the Have Nots become more desperate? Beware the gulf.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.
Anthony, With the Michigan unemployment rate at 10.3%, and the underemployment rate at nearly 25%, I'm thinking that there are a lot of people on welfare whose status has nothing to do with drugs. But this will show all of those people who can't find the jobs that the governor and his business buddies are going to create with that $1.5 billion giveaway. Good Night and Good Luck
David Briegel
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:19 a.m.
You use judgement Anthony. Something extremely lacking on your side of the aisle.
Anthony
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 10:06 p.m.
Then there should be no one to worry about then, right? If they aren't doing drugs then this is a non-issue. I never said I supported cutting welfare, I just made a suggestion. I said "And now if we can drug test recipients, that would cut another large portion from the welfare lifestyle and save this state some money." There is a difference. No where did I saw "Yeah, great." In actuality I think it is a bad decision and a crap shoot. There will always be those who abuse it and those who need and use it. But what do you do to stop the abusers without affecting those who truly need it?
David Briegel
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 9:39 p.m.
This is because we care about the children and their "right to life"? Oh well, they are no longer a fetus. This is the TeaPublican "Brave New World". Anthony, those children don't deserve to eat if their parents use drugs? Not so noble.
j5
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
Let me get this straight. Your solution to hunger for children of drug abusing parents is to give the parents a welfare check? Those same parents who are spending their free cash on drugs in the first place? No offense but it sounds like there is a huge hole in your logic. I'd say the "Teapublicans" have it right on this one. If you are worried about drug abusers kids getting fed then the last thing you should want is to do is to keep enabling addicts by giving them all the free time in the world and sending them a check. Four years is more than enough time to line up some work. Perhaps drug usage will drop if people are too busy working to have time for drugs. I can't think of a better formula for abuse than free time and free money. Welfare has done enough in the past few decades to destroy communities by incentivizing idleness. It's time to change the program so that it reflects the safety net it was intended to be rather than the lifestyle that it is.
Basic Bob
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 5:19 a.m.
@Briegel, Fetuses can be drug addicted, too. Have you no concern for them, even though they are not legally people with rights?
Oregon39_Michigan7
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
David it's easy of course! All these children have to do is not be poor and they'll be fine! Fear not, for the rich will trickle down their income to these kids in no time! After all, Reganeconomics has been in place since 1981, I'm sure it's bound to work at some point.
David Briegel
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 12:17 a.m.
Either way you don't have any concern for the children?
Anthony
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.
More often than not if the parent is abusing drugs then the child isn't in a healthy environment to begin with, food is just as scarce. The welfare money from the state probably isn't going to buy fruits and veggies, but only feed the parent's habit, or buy massive amounts of junk food.
Anthony
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 9:06 p.m.
And now if we can drug test recipients, that would cut another large portion from the welfare lifestyle and save this state some money.
snapshot
Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 3:16 a.m.
drug testing for teachers, cops, firefighter, doctors, lawyers,nurses, judges, prosecuters, legislatures, council members, commissioners......these are the people who can really do some damage. Why do you insist on kicking the little guy anthony? Are you a bully?
Enso
Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.
You wanna pay for tens of thousands of drug tests?