Opinion: Welfare rules should reflect modern reality
Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Aug. 20, 2011, Sacramento Bee.
For California legislators who want to help the unemployed get back to work and provide relief to financially strapped counties at the same time, Assembly Bill 1182 moves our state in the right direction.
The measure by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, would eliminate the $4,650 vehicle asset limit for welfare eligibility. Fifteen other states have already done so. But in California, a person is not eligible for welfare if they own a car worth $4,650 or more, a limit that has not been adjusted in 15 years. It is among the lowest in the nation. Only Texas and Idaho are stingier.
Beyond denying government assistance to needy people, the car asset test imposes a costly burden on counties whose welfare eligibility workers spend an estimated 15 to 30 minutes determining the worth of a car every time they process a CalWORKs application, and again and again at every six-month CalWORKs renewal period.
The rule also hurts people trying to get a job. The lack of reliable transportation is a major barrier to employment. Any car worth $4,650 or less is likely to be a piece of junk, unreliable, constantly in need of repairs.
It’s that reality that prompted Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, to break with the majority of his GOP colleagues and vote for the Hernandez bill. Jeffries says he would have preferred a bill that raised the cap, not eliminated it. Nonetheless he voted for it because, he said, “This is California, you need a reliable vehicle to seek work or maintain a job.”
Five other Republicans in the Asssembly joined Jeffries to support the bill. Assemblywoman Beth Gaines of Roseville was not one of them.
Thank you Beth Gaines for doing your job. Nanny states help no one in the long run. Lowering the eligibility requirements for welfare just keeps people on the dole longer.
I disagree that these people are being helped; they are being hindered from becoming productive members of society.
I agree with Miss Mort. Hawaii is a state that has a very high percentage of people receiving government aid. It’s always fun to go to the grocery store and watch the women with armloads of Hawaiian Heritage gold bracelets pay for their carts of food with foodstamps and then load it all into a 50K Cadillac SUV. No joke.
I think they should also be drug tested as a condition of reciving aid.
3 Fallacies presented in this opinion:
1.)”A car valued less than $4650 is a piece of junk, unreliable, in need of constant repairs.”
I own a 1996 Jeep Cherokee with almost 200K miles. Its value on the market is only about $2000. Yet somehow, it continues to serve me well, and has never been in the shop for a major repair. I repeat – NEVER. I am the 3rd owner, and the previous 2 obviously maintained it well.
2.)”This is California, you need a reliable vehicle to seek or maintain a job.”
I thought California prided itself on its extensive public transportation system. So a car should be unnecesary when it comes to landing or keeping a job.
3.)”This rule hurts people trying to get a job.”
False. Since when does ANY rule that eliminates or confirms one’s eligibility for welfare have anything to do with getting a job. Actually, this rule helps motivate people to get a job so they don’t have to enroll in welfare.