Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2005 House Bill 5441: “Three strikes and out” welfare work penalty
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. David Farhat (R) on November 22, 2005, to establish penalties for a welfare recipient who fails to abide by the “personal development plan” contract requirements specified by House Bill 5444. For the first violation the person would lose welfare payments for a month; for three months on a second violation; and for life for a third violation. This would not apply to disabled people or those who meet certain other requirements.
- 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-2) 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, to establish penalties for a welfare recipient who fails to abide by the “personal development plan” contract requirements specified by House Bill 5444. For the first violation the person would lose welfare payments for a month; for three months on a second violation; and for life for a third violation. This would not apply to disabled people or those who meet certain other requirements.
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 make the penalty for a first and second "contract" violation three months of no cash assistance, and two years for a third violation. 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 make the penalty for a third "contract" violation three months of no cash assistance, not two years. 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 establish penalties for a welfare recipient who fails to abide by the “personal development plan” contract requirements specified by House Bill 5444. The penalty for a first and second "contract" violation would be three months of no cash assistance, and two years for a third violation. This would not apply to disabled people or those who meet certain other requirements.
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 5439, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 5439 establishes welfare benefits amounts. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 13, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jerry Kooiman (R) on December 13, 2005, to establish procedures for when a person who has lost benefits for a "contract" violation, requiring conferences and a "contract" review. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 13, 2005.
- Passed 62 to 46 in the House on December 13, 2005, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill, which makes the penalty for a first and second welfare "contract" violation three months of no cash assistance, and two years for a third violation.
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' on HB 5441 (H-3) because it would create 'three strikes and you're out' penalties, which would terminate benefits to recipients for up to 30 months for "noncompliance" with program requirements, without sufficient consideration for the circumstances of noncompliance. Noncompliance with requirements can result from circumstances which are beyond a recipient's control, such as an instance of missing work because of a transportation problem or a sick child. While stricter sanctions may have a desirable impact on recipients who are intentionally abusing the system, recipients deserve to have a determination of the circumstances for any noncompliance before their benefits are terminated."
Reply
Rep. Sheltrown, 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 don't agree with 48 month can be arbitrarily set."
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 it is wrong headed and sends the wrong message, promotes crime, homelessness, despair orientation, parental abandonment, abortions, prostitution and a variety of social ills which will continue to plague our State and nation.
This package would have a detrimental impact on more than 36,000 children. We are already in a crisis situation in terms of providing day care to all who need it in this State and this bill will place greater demands on this overburdened system.
I remember when I was a young legislator and one of Michigan's true public servants and mentor of mine the late representative, Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Social Services from Monroe Michigan in the 1977-78 session of the Michigan legislature and I visited the Vice President Mr. Lahdney and the Chairman Mr. Messe of Detroit Edison and discussed, outlined, and created the energy assistance program and how proud I was when the Governor signed the bill and we were invited to participate. Why aren't we expanding this program to protect the poor from freezing with these deplorable high energy prices. We shouldn't cut any benefits we should be trying to quadruple the number of spaces available in job training. strengthen and expand the program in the Friend of Court for job placement and have a concerted effort to provide more for children of incarcerated parents. We need to expand coverage's available in health care and consider allowing the Medicare Administration to run all the health care programs nationally including Medicaid since they are able to run said programs for a fraction of the cost in the private sector.
These are some of what is needed in a true welfare reform package. The elements in this half-baked effort are a continued prescription for disaster and I can't in good conscience support this package."
Reply
View Full Conversation
