More GOP budget stupidity

[Oldguy]

The GOP dominated legislature in Oklahoma is going after poor people again. "Reducing" reliance upon public assistance by finding ways to kick people off it has become their fiscal and ideological mantra.

Now, a bill is introduced which would force recipients of some aid to do 35 hours of "work activities."

Sounds good, right? Except that the extra cost will be EIGHTEEN TIMES the projected savings!

And, this is from the "conservative" party of "fiscal sanity?" LOL

"…A fiscal analysis of Shannon’s bill suggests it would cost the Department of Human Services an estimated $18.7 million for the agency to add staff, develop work components and training, and change its system to comply with the requirements. The analysis projects nearly 5,200 recipients could be dropped from the program, for an estimated savings of $1 million…."

Durant Daily Democrat - Legislators take aim at needy Oklahomans

 

[Article 15]

The fight to restore family-planning financing that was cut from the Texas budget in the last legislative session has taken a turn toward primary care. Republican state senators have proposed adding $100 million to a state-run primary care program specifically for women’s health services, an effort that could help avoid a political fight over subsidizing specialty family-planning clinics.

“It’s a much better way to treat the women because they don’t just have family-planning issues,” said Senator Robert Deuell, Republican of Greenville, a family physician who has advocated an increase in primary-care services for women.

Using taxpayer dollars to finance family-planning services has become politically thorny in Texas, largely because of Republican lawmakers’ assertions that the women’s health clinics providing that care are affiliated with abortion providers. In the fiscal crunch of 2011, the Legislature cut the state’s family-planning budget by two-thirds, with some lawmakers claiming that they were defunding the “abortion industry.” Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, found that more than 50 family-planning clinics had closed statewide as a result.

Now, amid estimates that the cuts could lead to 24,000 additional 2014-15 births at a cost to taxpayers of $273 million, lawmakers are seeking a way to restore financing without ruffling feathers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/texas-may-restore-some-family-planning-budget-cuts.html?_r=5&

The clown shoes party.

 

[jwoodie]

The GOP dominated legislature in Oklahoma is going after poor people again. "Reducing" reliance upon public assistance by finding ways to kick people off it has become their fiscal and ideological mantra.

Now, a bill is introduced which would force recipients of some aid to do 35 hours of "work activities."

Sounds good, right? Except that the extra cost will be EIGHTEEN TIMES the projected savings!

And, this is from the "conservative" party of "fiscal sanity?" LOL

"…A fiscal analysis of Shannon’s bill suggests it would cost the Department of Human Services an estimated $18.7 million for the agency to add staff, develop work components and training, and change its system to comply with the requirements. The analysis projects nearly 5,200 recipients could be dropped from the program, for an estimated savings of $1 million…."

Durant Daily Democrat - Legislators take aim at needy Oklahomans

Great example of short term "thinking" which is bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy: Basing public policy on the (bloated) costs of administration instead of the long term effects of paying (and training) people NOT to work...

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow.. you take the word of a partisan site as truth.. just because you align with their politics

Color me shocked.. NOT

Here is an idea... stop pussyfooting around and get them ALL off the government entitlement ticket

 

[Oldguy]

Wow.. you take the word of a partisan site as truth.. just because you align with their politics

Color me shocked.. NOT

Here is an idea... stop pussyfooting around and get them ALL off the government entitlement ticket

A partisan site? LOL That's the "Durant Daily Democrat," the local Bryan County Oklahoma newspaper. In spite of it's name, it's solidly conservative Republican. It adopted that name in 1910 when a Republican couldn't win an unopposed run for dog catcher in Oklahoma.

 

[Avatar4321]

Working for money... what a concept

 

[Oldguy]

The GOP dominated legislature in Oklahoma is going after poor people again. "Reducing" reliance upon public assistance by finding ways to kick people off it has become their fiscal and ideological mantra.

Now, a bill is introduced which would force recipients of some aid to do 35 hours of "work activities."

Sounds good, right? Except that the extra cost will be EIGHTEEN TIMES the projected savings!

And, this is from the "conservative" party of "fiscal sanity?" LOL

"…A fiscal analysis of Shannon’s bill suggests it would cost the Department of Human Services an estimated $18.7 million for the agency to add staff, develop work components and training, and change its system to comply with the requirements. The analysis projects nearly 5,200 recipients could be dropped from the program, for an estimated savings of $1 million…."

Durant Daily Democrat - Legislators take aim at needy Oklahomans

Great example of short term "thinking" which is bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy: Basing public policy on the (bloated) costs of administration instead of the long term effects of paying (and training) people NOT to work...

Speaking of that, I wonder just how much real job training $18 million would buy? But, of course, job training is just another form of welfare to the GOP. It's far better to spend that kind of money to increase the size of government, something "conservative, small government" Republican's have never been shy about doing once elected.

 

[AmyNation]

I've noticed that some people feel "principal" is more important than actual cost. Like the death penalty or drug testing welfare recipients.

 

[Erand7899]

The GOP dominated legislature in Oklahoma is going after poor people again. "Reducing" reliance upon public assistance by finding ways to kick people off it has become their fiscal and ideological mantra.

Now, a bill is introduced which would force recipients of some aid to do 35 hours of "work activities."

Sounds good, right? Except that the extra cost will be EIGHTEEN TIMES the projected savings!

And, this is from the "conservative" party of "fiscal sanity?" LOL

"…A fiscal analysis of Shannon’s bill suggests it would cost the Department of Human Services an estimated $18.7 million for the agency to add staff, develop work components and training, and change its system to comply with the requirements. The analysis projects nearly 5,200 recipients could be dropped from the program, for an estimated savings of $1 million…."

Durant Daily Democrat - Legislators take aim at needy Oklahomans

It costs a lot of money to straighten out the messes that liberal/socialists create. There should have always been a work component to welfare. If liberal/socialists had any common sense, they would already know that.

Example: A single mother with two children sits home drawing welfare of (x) amount. She has rent subsidies, health care for her and her children, food stamps, etc. For arguments sake, lets say the total is (2X). If she is offered a job that pays her (2X plus Y), she probably will not take it, because her forty hours of work will only earn her only the (Y). She would also have to pay for child care, and her health insurance, even if available would cost her more. She is better off financially, sitting home with her children.

However, if she already has to work forty hours for her welfare benefits, then (Y) becomes a valuable pay raise. Why would we wish to create inducements for people not to leave welfare? Put in the work requirement.

 

[g5000]

The GOP dominated legislature in Oklahoma is going after poor people again. "Reducing" reliance upon public assistance by finding ways to kick people off it has become their fiscal and ideological mantra.

Now, a bill is introduced which would force recipients of some aid to do 35 hours of "work activities."

Sounds good, right? Except that the extra cost will be EIGHTEEN TIMES the projected savings!

And, this is from the "conservative" party of "fiscal sanity?" LOL

"…A fiscal analysis of Shannon’s bill suggests it would cost the Department of Human Services an estimated $18.7 million for the agency to add staff, develop work components and training, and change its system to comply with the requirements. The analysis projects nearly 5,200 recipients could be dropped from the program, for an estimated savings of $1 million…."

Durant Daily Democrat - Legislators take aim at needy Oklahomans

Much of that expense sounds like start-up costs. There is no long term cost analysis in that article.

 

[DiamondDave]

I've noticed that some people feel "principal" is more important than actual cost. Like the death penalty or drug testing welfare recipients.

Do you buy the $400 part to keep your wheel on your car, or do you try and use $50 worth of duct tape and hope you don't die when you hit 60MPH?

Nobody should be getting something for nothing from the government at the expense of taxpayers... don't like the expense of making them work for it?? Eliminate the entitlement all together.. solve both problems

 

[Darkwind]

Was there any analysis of the savings down the road? It may have an initial cost (a rounding error to most democrat programs) but the overall savings 10, 20, 50 years in time will more than make up for the set up costs. The social costs will likely be felt within 2 years as people get off of the life sucking government aid programs and stand on their own. They may even begin to look up from their feet and walk around like human beings proud of themselves and their accomplishments.

We wouldn't want any of that, would we?

 

[AmyNation]

I've noticed that some people feel "principal" is more important than actual cost. Like the death penalty or drug testing welfare recipients.

Do you buy the $400 part to keep your wheel on your car, or do you try and use $50 worth of duct tape and hope you don't die when you hit 60MPH?

Nobody should be getting something for nothing from the government at the expense of taxpayers... don't like the expense of making them work for it?? Eliminate the entitlement all together.. solve both problems

I like government spending to make sense. Just because its "government money" (aka taxpayer money) doesn't mean we shouldn't consider cost vs benefit when spending it.

 

[Ame®icano]

I could be done in much cheaper way.

You want welfare benefits? Yes.
You cant find a job? No.

OK, I'll find you a job.
Monday, cleaning aside of freeway, state will provide safety vests.
Tuesday, cleaning river bank, state will provide rubber boots.
Wednesday, picking trash and planting flowers at public parks.
Thursday, sanitation of waste treatment facility.
Friday, when you come to pick up your check, you'll find out whats next week schedule.

 

[bendog]

I thought all states had provisions for 'work testing' work age people who are not caring for children. Admittedly, Oklahoma may lead the nation in crazyness with drug testing for welfare ... which of course costs more than it saved.

 

[DiamondDave]

I've noticed that some people feel "principal" is more important than actual cost. Like the death penalty or drug testing welfare recipients.

Do you buy the $400 part to keep your wheel on your car, or do you try and use $50 worth of duct tape and hope you don't die when you hit 60MPH?

Nobody should be getting something for nothing from the government at the expense of taxpayers... don't like the expense of making them work for it?? Eliminate the entitlement all together.. solve both problems

I like government spending to make sense. Just because its "government money" (aka taxpayer money) doesn't mean we shouldn't consider cost vs benefit when spending it.

Doing the right thing is making sense... It is not just better to throw your hands up and just give the entitlement junkies free money, because it is cheaper to do so

As stated.. you wanna solve it.. get everyone off welfare, then you would not have to worry about turning it into workfare... that makes sense

 

[AmyNation]

Exactly what I said, principal over cost.

 

[Oldguy]

Do you buy the $400 part to keep your wheel on your car, or do you try and use $50 worth of duct tape and hope you don't die when you hit 60MPH?

Nobody should be getting something for nothing from the government at the expense of taxpayers... don't like the expense of making them work for it?? Eliminate the entitlement all together.. solve both problems

I like government spending to make sense. Just because its "government money" (aka taxpayer money) doesn't mean we shouldn't consider cost vs benefit when spending it.

Doing the right thing is making sense... It is not just better to throw your hands up and just give the entitlement junkies free money, because it is cheaper to do so

As stated.. you wanna solve it.. get everyone off welfare, then you would not have to worry about turning it into workfare... that makes sense

How do you get those who physically or mentally can't work off welfare? How do you get the single parent off welfare and into work when the job doesn't pay enough for child care AND living expenses? How do you move someone into the work force if there are not jobs available? How do you get people off "welfare" when they DO work, but it isn't enough?

Getting people "off" welfare is far, far easier said than done, isn't it?

Unless, of course, you really don't give a damn if they live or die. Then it's easy.

 

[bendog]

The 1996 reform required heads of familes to find work in two years. As I recall Obama opted out of that during the recession.

 

[AmyNation]

Btw, since when is it ok to target people based on assets not income? And how long before democrats turn it around and do the same thing with the wealthy that the Oklahoma GOP are doing with the poor?