” Testimony of Kevin M. Aslanian, Executive Director Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. ccwro.org 1901 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 Telephone 916-736-0616 Cell 916-712-0071
[email protected] Before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support House Committee on Ways and Means Hearing on TANF’s Role in Providing Assistance to Struggling Families CCWRO’s VIEW OF WELFARE REFORM Welfare Reform generally turns out to be Deform. For the past 30 years most of the so-called welfare reform proposals have proposed and enacted changes that make things worse for the impoverished children and families on welfare. What was the primary message of current Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) P.L. 104-193 – the 1996 welfare Deform bill? The message is anti-family and anti-child. There are two clear messages in the current program: (1) working is more important that parenting ; and (2) your job is the most important thing in your life. Your family comes after your job. Most people view their family and parenting as the most important missions in their lives – but not for poor families and children in the United States of America. To this day welfare officials and politicians continue to insist that working is more important than parenting. Although after the 1996 TANF Bill caseloads went down, the truth is poverty has gone up. The caseloads went down because people started timing out (60 month limit). This meant families stopped receiving aid they still needed Under TANF 70% of funding money goes to the welfare bureaucracy and only 30% goes to the payments to families with children. Before TANF 80% of the AFDC money went to payments to families. TANF has been a resounding success for the welfare bureaucrats and catastrophe for the poor. What is Real Welfare Reform? Real welfare reform is to make things better for families and children. Under the current TANF program many women have to participate in a workfare activity for the welfare bureaucrats the day after their baby is born. No breast-feeding for many poor babies born in America this is known in some quarters as welfare reform . Parents should be allowed to parent in dignity. If we can afford to give trillions to the rich and spend billions on wars of choice, why can’t we spend a miniscule part of that money on the impoverished families and children of America? Is this a Christian Nation? Do TANF recipients receive $33,000 a year? Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation asserts that welfare recipients receive $33,000 a year. Mr. Rector in his multipage testimony fails to identify one case number in the United States of America that receives $33,000 and receives TANF benefits. The reason is that there is no family that receives $33,000 a year in the United States of America except for families that exist in Mr. Rectors’ imagination. These are the same kind of lunatic claims that Bagdad Bob was making when the U.S. invaded Iraq and the Soviet propaganda machine was making during the cold war. The claim is that if a TANF family received every means tested benefit, and then the TANF family would receive $33,000. The reality is that not every TANF recipient is eligible for and able to receive benefits from every means tested program. However, it is understandable for Mr. Rector to believe that this can be done as his funders, many of whom are filthy rich, often are able to claim so many tax deduction that they end up not paying taxes on their multimillion dollar incomes. His hero, Ronald Reagan, a millionaire, did not pay taxes some years. Recipient View of TANF Reauthorization TANF is up for reauthorization in 2010. TANF has an ATM machine for States to bilk the TANF program for billions of dollars. Recently HHS released a comprehensive report entitled Eighth Annual Report to Congress – June 2009 : on the TANF program that reveals the magnitude to of the raid that States have launched on TANF money meant for the impoverished families. Majority of the money is used for reasons other than payments to poor families. http:\/\/www.acf.hhs.gov\/programs\/ofa\/data-reports\/index.htm#tanfdata In California TANF grant levels today are what they were in 1989. The Governor is proposing a 15.7% for 2010-2011. California’s TANF program has contributed over $15 billion to the California State general Fund since 1998. Not one penny of that $15 billion was ever used to feed or house children of impoverished families living in California. In 2010-2011 the Governor’s proposed budget has an estimated $2 billion TANF money scheduled as contribution to the California General Fund . To verify whether States have been helping impoverished families with needy children we looked at the TANF Report to Congress that reveals the utter contempt that States have for impoverished families with needy children. In 2008 only 31% of the TANF money was used for payments to families . This means 69% of the money was used for other reasons. Some may argue that they used the money for services, such as childcare and transportation. That may be true, but less than 2% of the money was used for childcare and 1% for transportation. What happened to 66% of the money? TABLE #1 reveals the percentage of total TANF funds used for payments to families during 2008. The TANF legislation provides that federal TANF dollars and the required state matching funds have to be used for four purposes: (1) keep needy children in family homes, (2) end dependence on government benefits, (3) reduce out of wedlock births and (4) encourage two parent households as direct assistance to the poor. With these elastic purposes majority of the TANF money can be used for just about anything other than providing payments to means tested impoverished families to meet their basic survival needs. Page 104 of the 2008 TANF Report to Congress shows what the maximum pay monthly benefits for a family of three has been in 1996, 1999, 2003 and 2006. In 24 states the benefits level for a family of three has remained the same from 1996 through 2006. 3 states actually had a higher payment level in 1996 than they did in 2006. District of Columbia 1996 $ 415 – 2006 $407 Hawaii 1996 $712 2006 $570 Idaho 1996 $317 2006 $309 43 states impose full family sanctions against families who allegedly failed to cooperate with the State Work Program. This shows the total contempt that majority of the States have for children; they punish innocent children for what their parents do. It should be noted that many of these children end up in foster care and it destroys families. Moreover, 70% of foster care kids end up in the United States prison system. 21 States punish children who were not aborted by their moms and were brought into this world while on welfare. The punishment meted out is not paying any cash assistance for the new born to women who choose not to have an abortion. This is called the family cap policy. Many of these kids end up in foster care because they are removed from the parent for the alleged neglect . The real neglectors are States that punishes women for not having an abortion. TANF has been an ATM machine for States bilking the program while totally neglecting impoverished families with children. TANF reauthorization should reverse this phenomenon and require that at least 70% of the total TANF funds be used for assistance payment to families . It shall also restrict states from denying aid to children for any behavior of the parents. Children should not be victimized due to the behavior of the parents with family caps, sanctions and other penalties against infants and minor children. There should be no time clock ticking for parents who are working. All of these punitive policies are a result of state flexibility which breeds full family sanctions, family caps, fleecing the TANF program and other anti-family and anti-child TANF policies RECIPIENT VIEW OF TANF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WELFARE ADMINISTRATORS Maintain the base TANF funding and formula allocation, and fold current supplemental funds into each eligible state’s base. Increase the current level of overall funding for the basic TANF block grant using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase since 1996 and employ reasonable allocation methodologies for new funds. Extend availability of existing Emergency Contingency Funds (ECF) through FY2011 and explore adding funds prior to reauthorization. It is important that people practice what they preach. APHSA officials complain that the funding they receive in 2010 is the same that they received in 1996. That may be true, but how much do they pay the needy families? Their needs have also gone up? What States have done is taken from the poor families and increased their bureaucratic budgets. That is why 70% of the TANF money is used for the bureaucracy and 30% to house and feed the families. We OPPOSE increasing funding for TANF and indexing the TANF money for States that do not index the payment to families . Funding increases should come with strings because like the banks, state welfare bureaucracies have a proven track record of depriving the poor to enrich themselves. Establish a standardized MOE requirement at 75 percent. We OPPOSE establishing an across the board 75% MOE requirement. We would SUPPORT a 75% MOE requirement for those states that use 70% of more of their total federal and MOE allocation for payment to families . Payments to families should be defined as a cash aid payment to families to make sure that State do not employ manipulative policies that result in payment to families being something other than cash aid payments to families. Restore counting MOE under TANF purposes 3 and 4 without restriction to eligible families. We OPPOSE this recommendation as purposes 3 and 4 (reduce out of wedlock births and encourage two parent households as direct assistance to the poor) have been used to take money out the mouths of hungry children and use it for State to balance their budgets by manipulating the provisions of purposes 3 and 4. It is because of purposes of 3 and 4 that California has taken $15 billion from poor families and kept their grant levels at the same level in 2010 that they were in 1989. This is unconscionable. Revise regulatory penalty provisions, thus making the option of appeal more viable for states. We OPPOSE this recommendation and suggest that States receive the same type of appeals rights that they make available to TANF families. The current appeals process for States is most generous compared to the penalties that States impose on TANF families for allegedly not participating in a TANF activity. Many states provide that lack of childcare is not a god cause for nonparticipation. It is appalling. We would SUPPORT changing the State TANF penalty system to be consistent with the type of appeal process states make available to TANF recipients. CCWRO Recommendations for TANF Reauthorization 70% of the TANF money shall be used for assistance payments to families . Assistance payment shall be defined as cash aid payments to families; No penalties\/sanctions\/family caps against innocent children of America Many states punish children for what their parents do. This is cowardly behavior and it is immoral. It is child abuse. No child should be punished for what its parents do. There is no evidence that sanctions have resulted in any positive behavior. In fact, most businesses used the positive incentives rather than negative incentives to get desired outcomes. States always ask for positive incentives to produce desired outcomes and insist on a very vigorous appeal process before any negative penalties can be imposed upon them, yet they rarely practice what they preach when it comes for poor families of America. Stop the clock for working TANF families. There is no time clock for foster care payments, for social security payments, for congressional pensions, yet somehow tome limits have been imposed upon poor families. We believe time limits are immoral, but they are especially immoral for working persons. Protect Families from rogue States who refuse to have a TANF program California Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed to eliminate the TANF program for the second year in a row. This has caused great unrest in the low-income community. Children are at risk and they need to be protected. The elimination of the TANF program would mean that hundreds of thousands of families would break up, children will end up in foster care homes. We would SUPPORT legislation that would have the federal government operate the TANF program in lieu of the State. This can save a lot of money for the federal government. In California alone, it can save a billion or more each year. If Congress decides not to take over the TANF program from the states to stop the state fleecing of federal dollars, then at least Congress should adopt a process whereby the federal government would operate the TANF program if a state elects to opt out of the TANF program. 2008 Total TANF Basic Assistance Child Care Transp. Total Expend. For Expenditure Payments Non-Assistance TOTAL 28,129,745,092 8,648,970,019 31% 554,679,148 1.97% 323,605,580 1.15% 18,082,991,966 64% ALABAMA 142,703,450 40,713,175 29% 37,671 0.03% 4,900,361 3.43% 97,052,243 68% ALASKA 62,618,543 33,507,885 54% 7,443,863 11.89% 880,853 1.41% 20,785,942 33% ARIZONA 348,648,363 121,767,061 35% 0 0.00% 1,424,026 0.41% 225,457,276 65% ARKANSAS 144,429,058 13,515,457 9% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 130,913,601 91% CALIFORNIA 6,687,297,080 3,252,007,950 49% 192,761,394 2.88% 139,782,105 2.09% 2,937,310,095 44% COLORADO 230,522,823 42,639,891 18% 0 0.00% 2,634,585 1.14% 185,248,347 80% CONNECTICUT 496,433,622 100,482,895 20% 4,480,387 0.90% 0 0.00% 389,671,996 78% DELAWARE 68,010,869 13,475,885 20% 1,621,354 2.38% 0 0.00% 52,913,630 78% DIST.OF COLUMBIA 160,828,810 21,414,961 13% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 139,413,849 87% FLORIDA 948,327,470 158,913,733 17% 15,898,847 1.68% 635,998 0.07% 772,878,892 81% GEORGIA 614,970,867 74,073,720 12% 23,098,641 3.76% 18,977,631 3.09% 498,820,875 81% HAWAII 229,161,027 48,682,475 21% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 180,478,552 79% IDAHO 34,736,983 5,505,784 16% 0 0.00% 82,262 0.24% 29,148,937 84% ILLINOIS 1,013,298,702 60,486,523 6% 0 0.00% 2,463,217 0.24% 950,348,962 94% INDIANA 307,914,275 76,018,087 25% 0 0.00% <1,315,337> 0.00% 233,211,525 76% IOWA 172,539,579 60,106,428 35% 10,194,971 5.91% 3,012,950 1.75% 99,225,230 58% KANSAS 176,155,602 46,132,310 26% 9,790,508 5.56% 7,440,574 4.22% 108,333,225 61% KENTUCKY 193,155,383 106,151,412 55% 11,828,452 6.12% 6,190,026 3.20% 68,985,493 36% LOUISIANA 172,783,957 37,860,309 22% 8,368,074 4.84% 1,340,716 0.78% 125,214,858 72% MAINE 126,825,275 70,200,037 55% 7,649,780 6.03% 18,309,820 14.44% 30,665,638 24% MARYLAND 405,147,673 113,031,371 28% 124,464 0.03% 86,880 0.02% 291,904,958 72% MASSACHUSETTS 915,028,670 293,351,120 32% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 621,677,550 68% MICHIGAN 1,229,605,394 337,949,681 27% 47,083,998 3.83% 0 0.00% 868,796,780 71% MINNESOTA 434,519,789 70,883,104 16% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 363,636,685 84% MISSISSIPPI 91,104,043 18,481,700 20% 0 0.00% 6,821,883 7.49% 65,800,460 72% MISSOURI 332,477,116 113,778,808 34% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 218,698,308 66% MONTANA 39,140,456 14,226,840 36% 1,313,990 3.36% 0 0.00% 21,422,047 55% NEBRASKA 94,112,951 23,167,357 25% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 70,945,594 75% NEVADA 84,705,650 24,292,338 29% 1,411,542 1.67% 5,030,033 5.94% 53,971,737 64% NEW HAMPSHIRE 85,297,320 23,824,195 28% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 54,775,926 64% NEW JERSEY 954,549,189 200,065,680 21% 26,374,178 2.76% 17,117,303 1.79% 710,992,028 74% NEW MEXICO 128,692,434 55,006,875 43% 2,895,258 2.25% 199,255 0.15% 70,591,046 55% NEW YORK 4,422,854,615 1,428,242,373 32% 101,983,998 2.31% 0 0.00% 2,632,069,218 60% NORTH CAROLINA 446,893,081 79,891,677 18% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 366,010,956 82% NORTH DAKOTA 37,086,344 7,630,285 21% 1,016,606 2.74% 126,630 0.34% 18,845,112 51% OHIO 1,501,163,076 307,203,938 20% 0 0.00% 10,702,454 0.71% 1,183,256,684 79% OKLAHOMA 175,918,077 20,707,125 12% 10,989,081 6.25% 19,094,071 10.85% 114,424,686 65% OREGON 309,176,612 91,724,605 30% 23,404,314 7.57% 8,388,665 2.71% 157,873,772 51% PENNSYLVANIA 961,552,372 218,530,827 23% 0 0.00% 19,246,350 2.00% 723,775,195 75% RHODE ISLAND 109,182,938 40,730,642 37% 1,568,972 1.44% 157,351 0.14% 66,725,973 61% SOUTH CAROLINA 170,362,249 34,628,615 20% 0 0.00% 3,247,351 1.91% 132,486,283 78% SOUTH DAKOTA 28,545,277 12,784,415 45% 802,914 2.81% 0 0.00% 7,731,088 27% TENNESSEE 290,193,867 93,722,337 32% 23,928,314 8.25% 454,178 0.16% 172,089,038 59% TEXAS 821,875,550 98,128,017 12% 0 0.00% 249,439 0.03% 677,074,708 82% UTAH 85,708,335 24,891,496 29% 6,482,243 7.56% 1,547,667 1.81% 52,786,929 62% VERMONT 72,143,568 26,058,457 36% 0 0.00% 6,120,945 8.48% 39,964,166 55% VIRGINIA 271,076,657 92,994,978 34% 6,462,908 2.38% 0 0.00% 171,618,771 63% WASHINGTON 704,948,904 267,864,015 38% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 437,084,889 62% WEST VIRGINIA 115,181,837 31,148,455 27% 4,108,719 3.57% 14,951,851 12.98% 64,972,812 56% WISCONSIN 452,884,898 89,486,194 20% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 363,398,704 80% WYOMING 27,254,412 10,886,521 40% 1,553,707 5.70% 3,303,487 12.12% 11,510,697 42% Total 28,129,745,092 8,648,970,019 31% 554,679,148 1.97% 323,605,580 1.15% 18,082,991,966 64% Under TANF 70% of funding money goes to the welfare bureaucracy and only 30% goes to the payments to families with children. Before TANF 80% of the AFDC money went to payments to families. TANF has been a resounding success for the welfare bureaucrats and catastrophe for the poor. ”
