Democrats want to preserve the safety net of social services for Maine’s neediest families.
As do Republicans.
Republicans want every dollar budgeted for those families to be spent where intended, and not lost to greed and fraud.
As do Democrats.
If they’re so agreed on these points, and they say they are, why the sound and fury being lobbed out of Augusta?
If only it were possible, in the words of John F. Kennedy, that we “not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.”
Maine’s proud Dirigo heritage is being usurped by political rhetoric. Actually, it’s more like political pomposity.
There is nothing bipartisan or particularly admirable about the debate over welfare reform at the State House.
Last month, Republican Gov. Paul LePage initiated four welfare reform bills that were, before any formal debate in the State House, verbally rejected outright by Democrats.
LePage had proposed a requirement that anyone seeking TANF must apply for three jobs before qualifying for aid, something that 19 other states are already doing and something recipients have to do while receiving TANF. He also proposed that EBT cards be banned from use out of state, pointing to a summary of questionable out-of-state transactions across the country.
And, he proposed making it illegal to use welfare funds to buy tobacco or alcohol, to gamble or to post bail. Since that’s not the purpose of welfare, either in statute or in real life, that seems appropriate, particularly since there is evidence that funds are being used for these expenditures.
Maine law already prohibits welfare recipients from using benefits cards in certain establishments, like liquor stores, but it doesn’t control what recipients do with the cash they get from ATMs; this bill would have outlawed spending that cash for cigarettes and lottery tickets.
As the law now stands, a welfare recipient can get TANF cash from an EBT card and spend every cent on lottery tickets. That’s wrong.
After weeks of steady debate (more in the press than on the floor), the House Dems happily announced Thursday that they had rejected “LePage’s harmful welfare bills vilifying poor.”
Vilifying the poor?
The bills themselves vilified no one.
There was much not to like in some of the language — including the elimination of the nationally recognized Parents as Scholars program — but rather than come to the table to amend the bills to best account for spending while also preserving our safety net, lawmakers marched straight into battle.
When asked why they opposed the bill requiring TANF applicants to seek employment before qualifying for benefits, the Democrats pointed out that 25 percent of all TANF applicants are women with children in crisis and were in no shape — emotionally, physically or professionally — to look for a job. OK, but what about the other 75 percent?
The bill could easily have been amended to allow a person in crisis to apply for a waiver, and let the requirement ride for everyone else. It would have reinforced the concept that TANF is intended to provide temporary assistance to families in need and that the ultimate goal is employment. In fact, that is its very mission drafted into the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act passed into law as part of widespread welfare reform under President Bill Clinton — a Democrat — in 1996.
And, if we know — and we do — that TANF funds are being cashed out of state in questionable transactions spewing thousands of dollars from ATMs in Massachusetts and Florida, why shouldn’t Maine rein that in?
Because, the Democrats say, many TANF recipients have legitimate needs to spend benefits out of state, including shopping for groceries in New Hampshire or traveling to visit a sick relative. Again, since recipients are in contact with DHHS when making application for these funds, they can make the case that they will need to spend money outside Maine and receive a waiver permitting expenditures.
And, despite the concern that the ban could be unconstitutional, that question was never answered because the bill was never really debated. It was just rejected.
It has been interesting to see such entrenched and emotional arguments made, as if TANF spending is out of control. It isn’t.
In 2010, despite the highest unemployment rate and the highest poverty rate in the past decade, the number of TANF recipients dropped 20 percent in this country. In Maine, the reduction was about 11 percent.
To their credit, on Thursday Republicans made a good-faith effort to work with Democrats to compromise on the bills, but the battle was too far along and the political injuries already too great.
In the end, the bills failed in the House and aren’t expected to do any better in the Senate. But, that doesn’t mean the war is over.
According to DHHS Commissioner Mary Mayhew, TANF applicants will be coached to seek employment when they apply for benefits, to help establish a goal of eventual employment.
And, while he hasn’t yet made a move to do this, we urge the governor to forward what he suspects are EBT and TANF fraud causes to the Office of the Attorney General for prosecution, particularly since the Democrats budgeted an additional $700,000 for that purpose.
A little prosecution could be good for reform.
There is no question that there are people in Maine — more than there should be — who need public assistance to pay for basic life necessities, and we have a moral obligation to help them. We also have a financial obligation to ensure that people who receive this assistance are using it as intended, so the public’s dollars are put to the best possible use. Not just when it’s politically convenient, but every single day.
It appears, from outside Augusta looking in, that there is more interest and enthusiasm for the political fight surrounding welfare reform than actually enacting any real reform.
How is that helping preserve Maine’s safety net and ensuring every welfare dollar is spent as intended?
The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
