Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2005 House Bill 5439: Revise welfare income cap formula
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Rick Shaffer (R) on November 22, 2005, to include the amount of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) received by a welfare recipient in the maximum income eligibility calculation. This generally refers to federal social security benefits paid to families with a disabled family member. The bill would reduce state welfare payments to most SSI recipients.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on November 22, 2005.
- Reported in the House on November 30, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on December 1, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 1, 2005.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on November 22, 2005.
- Passed 56 to 51 in the House on December 1, 2005.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on December 6, 2005.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on December 6, 2005.
- Reported in the Senate on December 8, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on December 8, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that eliminates the SSI cap formula, and instead just sets standard rates for those who get SSI payments and those and do not. The substitute also establishes a standard cash benefit of $79 for each additional family member in familes of eight or more, and authorizes contracting with non-profit organizations to help individuals to navigate the SSI application process. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 8, 2005.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on December 6, 2005.
- Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate on December 8, 2005, to eliminate a proposed benefits formula that uses the amount of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) received by a welfare recipient to determine the maximum income eligibility amount, and instead just sets standard amounts and cash assistance rates for those who get SSI payments and those and do not. The bill also authorizes contracting with non-profit organizations to help individuals to navigate the SSI application process.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on December 8, 2005.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Jerry Kooiman (R) on December 13, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 13, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jerry Kooiman (R) on December 13, 2005, to tie-bar the bill to House Bill 5441, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 5441 provides penalties for a welfare recipient who fails to abide by the “personal development plan” contract requirements specified by House Bill 5444. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 13, 2005.
- Passed 60 to 48 in the House on December 13, 2005, to concur with the Senate-passed version, which eliminates a proposed benefits formula that uses the amount of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) received by a welfare recipient to determine the maximum income eligibility amount, and instead just sets standard amounts and cash assistance rates for those who get SSI payments and those and do not. It also allows contracting with non-profit organizations to help individuals to navigate the SSI application process. The House added some minor changes.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on December 13, 2005, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill, which only extends the sunset of the these welfare changes through Fiscal Year 2009, and makes other minor changes. Passed 23 to 14 in the Senate on December 13, 2005.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 27, 2005.
Most Recent Comments
1) Rep. Lemmons' III "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on December 15, 2005Rep. Lemmons III, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted 'no' for HB 5439 (H-2) because it restructures the payment standards for cash assistance, lowering the amount of assistance to some recipients, and because it is tie-barred to HB 5441 (H-3), which creates punitive sanctions that could terminate benefits to recipients for up to 30 months, and count toward a 48-month lifetime limit to benefits, for noncompliance that may be outside of a recipient's control."
Reply
Rep. Cushingberry, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I will explain my no vote a little differently by using this parable to so explain. A great and prophetic revolutionary leader once told a story of how he approached a group in tattered clothing and slurred speech and requested help. I could imagine he smelled and looked disheveled, with unkempt hair and halitosis and this prosperous group promptly sent him away instead of any attempt to assist. Next he improved his hygiene and appearance but did not look exactly like the prosperous group nor was his communication in the form to their accustomed linguistic sensibilities and they sent him away again without any basic survival support.
Finally he returned adorned in purple robes and fine linens with velvet and dapper adornments using the aristocratic language of the sophisticated set in this prosperous groups. They promptly welcomed him to come in and sup, prepared an elaborate and relaxful bath with the finest soaps and perfumes and offered him the best of their guest quarters.
This conscientious Prince of Peace promptly told them no thanks because when I came to you in need you turned me away and now in splendor you want my company.
He told the prosperous group that the way they treated the least of his subjects was really the way they treated him.
Are we the prosperous sanctimonious group by adoption of this package?
Why is it we can always come up with restrictions, directions, penalties, and harsh treatment for the least fortunate yet drive to make life easier for the wealthiest?
That's why I can't vote for this bill and the package."
Reply
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
Again, we are sitting here at 10:30 at night rushing through a piece of legislation which has been rushed through the legislative process. This is a serious issue. One that needs to be addressed in a thoughtful and inclusive manner. Instead, we have legislation by 'press release.' Hot button, emotional issues, to be sure. I agree that the welfare system needs improvement. But this bill, rushed through the legislative process, has several critical problems. Chief among them, House Bill 5439 requires the Department of Human Services to include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) received by any member of a family group in determining a recipient's income for eligibility for benefits. It should be noted that SSI, is federal assistance intended to provide for the unique expenses related to disability and not other individuals. This is not humane, nor does it treat disabled people with dignity. Thus I voted 'no' on House Bill 5439."
Reply
View Full Conversation
