Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2005 House Bill 5440: Impose four year lifetime welfare limit
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Tom Pearce (R) on November 22, 2005, to require the Department of Human Services to determine whether new Michigan residents applying for welfare have received welfare or Medicaid in the state in which he or she previously resided. This relates to House Bill 5438, which imposes a four-year lifetime cap on cash welfare benefits.
- 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 62 to 45 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 amendment 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 revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 8, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Gilda Jacobs (D) on December 8, 2005, to not count welfare payments a person received in another state against the four-year welfare cash benefit cap this legislative package would impose. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on December 8, 2005.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on December 6, 2005.
- Passed 24 to 11 in the Senate on December 8, 2005, to require the Department of Human Services to determine whether new Michigan residents applying for welfare have received welfare or Medicaid in the state in which he or she previously resided. This relates to House Bill 5438, which imposes a four-year lifetime cap on cash welfare benefits.
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.
- Passed 63 to 45 in the House on December 13, 2005, to concur with the Senate-passed version, with 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. 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 5440 (H-2) because it is fundamentally unfair to include assistance an applicant for benefits in Michigan received in other states of residence prior to coming to Michigan, toward the recipient's 48-month lifetime limit to benefits. Benefits received in other states are not necessarily equivalent to Michigan's benefits, and a new applicant for benefits would not be assured the resources for training and education intended to help them overcome barriers to employment and become self-sufficient."
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 voted no on this bill because welfare reform doesn't work and only creates problems for us in other area's of the budget and society. Over the years I have marveled at the impact of the various welfare and mental health reforms. I have a humble background and remember when many of the families of the 1950's Royal Oak Township received the 'commodities' and those with mental problems received general assistance. There were facilities for the severely ill and families could get help with transitional downturns in Michigan's economy.
As a student in the late Sixties and early Seventies I was proud that I lived in a State which led the nation in the 'war on poverty' as crafted by the late Congressman Adam Clayton Powell and implemented by President's Johnson and Nixon. Although rarely did I support 'Tricky Dick' especially his 'benign neglect' of the persistent racial problem in America, one of his most brilliant efforts was for a guaranteed income for all Americans which if embraced would have gone a long way to win the war on poverty.
Instead this country got the 'Southern White Citizen Council religion' and embarked on an effort to do something about these welfare cheats and welfare 'princess' instead of striving to eradicate poverty. We begin to play to the worst in our populace by imagery that all the people on aid were lazy good for nothings that were taking something from us 'good' folks.
We began to wholesale change the rules and began a whole new set of even more devastating problems for our State. Our efforts to get votes and money was to play to the worst in ourselves; greed, envy, selfishness, lack of mercy, and although using the language of Religion we supported retribution, retaliation, reprobation, and a 'I got mine now you get yours attitude' which is the total opposite of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic ethic.
The effect and result of this is a massive shift to a lock em up attitude is growing homeless population of not only individuals but also families, increased domestic violence because of the pressures placed on families, further abandonment of frail elderly or exasperated family caregivers who are stroke victims for trying to take care of their loved ones, pandering on the streets of every major inner city in this State by the mentally challenged and a prison population with half of the inmates incarcerated for trying to make a living in the underground drug economy and nearly all the other half with severe mental problems and nearly all of them educationally challenged.
This is why I voted no on the passage of these bills. Our State cannot take another round of welfare reform and it's 'unintended' effects."
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:
While the intention of this bill has some merit, HB 5440, is still yet another of a package of bills rushed through the legislative process, almost in the middle of the night. Really colleagues, we spend a considerable amount of time and debate on issues relating to tax incentives for businesses, as well as for tax cuts that benefit our most comfortably well-off citizens. Shouldn't this important issue be given the same thoughtful and careful consideration? Maybe the reason this is being run in the middle of the night is that the moving parties realize just how bad it is. I trust that is not the case, and I recognize that this whole package represents a work in process. However, please note that this bill will probably entail considerably a larger welfare administration costs -- something I think we all do not want to see. I also believe that this legislation contains some critical flaws, thus I voted 'no' on this legislation."
Reply
View Full Conversation
