Skip to comments.Report: Job training rule for food stamps would trim rolls by half
Posted on 05/20/2013 11:09:15 AM PDT by Jean S
Madison Requiring basic job training from able-bodied participants in the state's food stamp program would cause about half of them to drop out of the program a total of tens of thousands of people statewide and 14,500 in just Milwaukee.
The new projections come from the Legislature's nonpartisan budget office, which last week released its analysis of Gov. Scott Walker's plan to require 62,700 able-bodied adults without children in Wisconsin FoodShare to attend bare-bones job training. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau puts the total cost for that at $35.8 million over two years, including $16.8 million for state payers.
The proposal is part of Walker's 2013-'15 budget bill and comes before the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee on Tuesday as part of a full day of deliberations on the state's spending and taxing plan for the next two years.
Under the budget bill, FoodShare participants would have to do at least 20 hours a week of job training or work searches to keep receiving benefits. State and federal taxpayers would likely provide them somewhere between $50 and $100 a month worth of training, depending on how many of the participants sign up for it and how many simply drop out of FoodShare.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
What’s the cost of the “job training” vs. the cost of their continuing to receive food stamps and do nothing?
but the TOTUS wants his base to look amazing
Mandatory drug testing would trim it even more.
“If any would not work, neither should he eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
And the administration would sue claiming discrimination, a catchall accusation used when there is no reason to believe the law has been broken.
Maybe a few welfare queens could be trained to hold umbrellas so our Marines could go about securing the USA.
Oh, probably not, as they would complain that the job was too demeaning.
How about the ones who already have full-time jobs?
Gov Tommy Thompson did this once before and the welfare rolls dropped drastically in Wisconsin late 80s early 90s.
This has been tried and failed. Low drug detection rates and the testing cost more than savings from dropping the (relatively few) detected druggies. More sophisticated and costly tests aren’t the answer and mj is certainly not going to disqualify in states where it is legal.
It is possible that certain subgroups of SNAP recipients have heightened rates of drug use but it wasn’t the case across the Florida sample.
Well, unfortunately they don’t just ‘do nothing’.
They reproduce themselves... because it is the ONLY thing remaining for them to do that they are capable of doing and which cannot be done by someone else.
“job training” That’s a dog whistle racist phrase /sarc
No! No more damn “job training” boondoggles that are just a featherbed wealth transfer to goofy, ineffective “job training” companies and entities.
Mandating “job training” at “state-approved” “job trainers” just adds corporate welfare on top of individual welfare.
You want food stamps? Actively seek and find a JOB.
“Gov Tommy Thompson did this once before and the welfare rolls dropped drastically in Wisconsin late 80s early 90s.”
I knew someone did that before and I was trying to think who that was - it was Thompson,thanks for knowing the name.
What if its someone who is already working 40 hours a weeks but needs a little help?
“Rudy did it in NYC with “workfare.”
OVERNIGHT, more than a third (half?) of welfare recipients in NYC evaporated when it went into effect.”
I thought Rudy was a fine mayor - I didn’t live in New York but what he did was commendable - cut down crime and of course was a champion on 9-11 and after.
The mass migration into Illinois will be something to behold.
Wisconsin job training ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
I did...from LaGuardia to Bloomberg...and Rudy was, by far, the best.
How right you are! I missed the subtlety of “a job” vs “the job”.
I'd object much less to subsidizing working poor than to feeding layabouts. But I'd prefer to see both go back to the old way- CHARITY.
Works for me.
That is about half.
At least 40 percent of entitlement spending is fraud.
An LA County audit about 10 years ago documented a 60% fraud rate in LA county alone. The LA County entitlement budget is 18 billion dollars a year.
This I on top of an already publicly disclosed cost of 5 billion per year for court mandated free health care for illegal aliens
This requirement is only for able bodied people who are not working. It would not stop any employed low income person from getting food stamps.
“Whats the cost of the job training vs. the cost of their continuing to receive food stamps and do nothing?”
That is the most important fact that the journalist Jason Stein should have reported in the linked article. But, it would have required too much work apparently!
According to the WI Legislature’s nonpartisan budget office report linked in the article, for the year 2012 there were an average of 840,193 people enrolled at a cost of $1.1778 BILLION to the federal gubmint (FoodShare is a WI rename for fed food stamps and is not a state benefit). So, if half of the people drop out, that would save over $1 BILLION over the next two years in taxpayer money (in WI alone!) vs. an estimated job training cost of only $35.8 million. That is one hell of a deal!
Also, according to that report, this requirement for job search or training is ALREADY in the fed food stamp law as an option for states to enforce. So this is not a new proposal. IMO, all states should exercise this option.
And Clinton based HIS welfare reforms on those Governor Thompson made in Wisconsin.
But that was in a whole ‘nother LIFETIME ago. *SIGH*
Oh I get that. These programs were designed for people needed temporary help, is there abuse - yes.
And the are. people on FR who lump everyone in the same pot.
As I understand it from the article, the job-training requirement would apply only to able-bodied, working-age adults with no children, and half THAT group would drop out, not half the total recipient population. That changes the cost/benefit calculation.
It might still come out ahead in terms of cost, but we don't know.
It's fascinating, though, that so many decide that even "job training," not getting a job or anything!, is too difficult.