Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House 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

The vote was 56 in favor, 51 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 689 at House Journal 104)

Click here to view bill details.

I wish you had to live on as little as you want these jpeople to live on. I wish you had to do it for 10 lifetimes and then you might get the point. You are just mean and pompous.

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."

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."

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 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."