Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on November 22, 2005, to phase in a cumulative 48-month lifetime cap on the receipt of cash welfare benefits, with exceptions for the disabled and for recipients caring for a disabled child or spouse. A month in which the regional unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent would not count toward the limit. Under current law, Michigan has no time limit for cash assistance

The vote was 64 in favor, 43 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 688 at House Journal 104)

Click here to view bill details.

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: This is an extremely important issue that will affect the lives of thousands of single parents with children throughout this state. First of all, I object with the manner in which this legislation has been handled. It was introduced on November 22, 2005, and has been rushed through committee, and from second to third reading during a late night session of this legislature. I do not think this is a thoughtful way of addressing a serious issue -- particularly one which affects the very ability of families and children to survive. Be that as it may, while I recognize and agree with my colleagues that welfare reforms are needed, I disagree with several key provisions of House Bill 5438; specifically, the absolute lifetime limit on benefits which is too harsh. The legislation would be improved to include some flexibility to address true hardship cases for circumstances which are beyond a recipient's control. Also, as a technical matter, the benefit reduction provision essentially removes the 'income disregard provision' in House Bill 5442 (part of the package) which is designed to create an incentive to work. I hope that these and several of the other problems with House Bill 5438 can be addressed. However, as this bill stands now, I cannot support this legislation. Thus I voted 'no' on House Bill 5438."

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 think that the 48 month termination can be fairly used in some cases."

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 house bill 5438 because it is a continued misguided effort to penalize the poor and deflect attention to what is truly needed- a massive effort to retrain, upgrade skills, and educate more intensely the adults of our state. This complete package misses the boat and the need to fill the ship with those in need continues to grow. With the effort at the last minute to pass legislation without significant hearings or public input demonstrates why we have so many problems in the current legislative process. The lack of deliberation and well thought out public policy continues to permeate this session of the legislature. Why not call in people who currently receive aid and ask them what would be helpful? Is there a graph from the second world war until today in the record which demonstrates the cyclical nature of our economy and how the distance from the top to the bottom continues to grow? When will we make the education of adults our 'welfare reform.' this bill needs additional work and is premature. What about an increase in basic grants and heating assistance which have been the same for over a decade? The answer for the sake of our economy is give free education and training to all who request same."

Senator Jacobs' first statement is as follows: I recognize that there have been a lot of man and woman hours put into this package, and there are a lot of good things in this package of bills. I think this bill is the one bill--sort of the meat and potatoes--that we really have to be taking a look at. You know, yesterday, when I did my invocation, I did a prayer for children. I'm just going to take an excerpt from it. I said, "We pray for those who never get dessert, who have no safe blanket to drag behind them, who watch their parents watch them die, who can't find any bread to steal, and who don't have any rooms to clean up. We pray for children who want to be carried and for those who must and for those whom we never give up on and for those who don't get a second chance." It's the second chance part of my message that goes with this amendment. As a state, we need to be very flexible. We don't know always what the economic circumstances are going to be of our state or what the plight of an individual might have to face. We can't look into the foreseeable future. We don't have a crystal ball. All of us, I think, would be in agreement that 48 months seems like enough, and even an extra 12 months may seem like a lot, but I think we have to give the department some discretion in certain situations I don't want to have to tie the hands of our overworked staff people in the department. Give them the discretion to help people who might need an extra measure of support. We can do that without ruining the intention of the meat of this bill. So, basically, what this amendment does is gives the department discretion to go beyond 12 months with additional benefits, so that we're not just bound to 48 months plus an additional 12 months. So I ask you to do this. This is what the administration wants. It's what the administration will sign off on, and I think at the end of the day, we could walk away and feel proud about this package of bills. Without this amendment, we then start to play politics. The kids in this state deserve more. Please check your hearts. Remember those kids we prayed for yesterday. Senator Jacobs' second statement is as follows: I plead with this body not to play politics. The Governor was brought up in this discussion here. I have to say, I'm going to read from the Governor's letter, which re-explains what seems to be something that was taken out of context, and to make this perfectly clear where the Governor is on this: "Dear Senator Hardiman, as you continue your discussion on welfare reform, allow me to share my position on these efforts. I believe that time limits are not appropriate for those who are working, but have not achieved self-sufficiency, or for those vulnerable populations who have a barrier to employment. Those include, among others, those in poverty, caring for children, those completing training that will lead to secure employment, or those living with a medical condition that prevents employment. In those situations, time limits would simply serve to harm those most in need. I do believe, however, that if there are able-bodied people with no barriers to self-sufficiency currently left in our welfare system, 48 months should be enough time to get back on one's feet. Michigan's welfare system should help individuals gain financial independence so that they can contribute to the growth of Michigan's economy. It should also provide a strong safety net for the state's most vulnerable citizens. I value our dialogue on this issue and look forward to crafting a solution that achieves both of these goals." My amendment achieves both of these goals. Let's put partisan politics aside and do what is the right thing. I urge my colleagues to please vote for the Jacobs amendment, and let's not try to paint the Governor into a box for political reasons when we can make some terrific public policy here today.

Rep. 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 5438 (H-2) because it would impose a 48-month lifetime limit to welfare benefits, with no consideration of an individual recipient's circumstances, even if a recipient were in full compliance with all requirements. Currently, there is no time limit in Michigan for receiving benefits, as long as recipients meet all eligibility requirements. While most states impose time limits of some kind, all states that impose time limits also allow for a t least some exemptions that 'stop the clock' or extensions to increase the number of months of assistance to families. Time limits should only be enacted in Michigan if exceptions and/or extensions are also provided in order to ensure that recipients who are doing everything required of them, yet are still unable to earn wages due to barriers or other circumstances beyond their control, are not cut off from cash assistance benefits."

Shouldn't we first fix that state of economy in Michigan before we start knifing the welfare. We are in no position to tell people that we cannot give them jobs or money. That is just cruel and will succeed only in driving people out of the state and/or into jail when they start to take matters into their own hands. The legislature should first take care of the problems in this state before it creates more. Are we trying to make sure that no one but the DeVos's, Van Andel's and Meijer's are the only residents in the state who can afford to live here?

Burns us!:(

the governments job to " give them jobs or money." "That is just cruel and will succeed only in driving people out of the state and/or into jail when they start to take matters into their own hands." Why don't you even make getting a job one of the choices? I guess if you are out of work then your only options are leaving the state or take up a life of crime. You are delusional and don't understand what the function of the government is. Probably due to 12 years at the public indoctrination centers. "Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state." -- Adolph Hitler'"

Interestingly enough, if the e-mail updates cannot properly convey to the electorate consice information regarding legislative action, then doubt should be casted upon the legitimacy of the legislative history of the particulary bill. The terms were set for the year "3007". No wonder the Governor vetoed the first action!