The end of Welfare Reform as we Know it?

The question comes up because Friday I led a floor fight against SB 68, a bill that eliminates the asset test for a program that provides cash assistance to the needy.

There are two key financial tests that case workers apply when processing an application:

1) How much income do you have?
2) What assets do you have?

Makes sense. Why would we we have a policy of giving taxpayer funded benefits to someone who had a high income or assets they could simply convert to cash and thus take care of their own obligations?

But the bill eliminates this asset test. Colorado will be one of just a handful to make this unwise move.

If there is no asset test, then people who are caught in a cash crunch -- but who have other assets like savings accounts, CDs, RVs, homes, etc. that could be made liquid in order to handle their own obligations -- will be able to access taxpayer provided benefits. The asset test that was eliminated in SB 68 was set at $15,000. Now there is no upper limit on assets at all!

The bill's sponsor told me in Appropriations committee that we should encourage people to keep their savings in place and tap into this (using my words now) "free pot of money." After all, if they had school plans in mind, why should they have to use their money when they could use ours? She explained to me that this is an incentive for people to find work and go to school. Oh really? Isn't the incentive just the opposite?

Anyway, let's all keep something in mind: the government can't give benefits to someone without first taking money from someone else.

Doesn't it make sense, then, to insist that the government should only provide a basic safety net to those are truly unable to do so on their own?

We all have compassion for those who are caught in hard times. Many of us have experienced them ourselves. But maybe you believe, like Reagan did and I do, that our compassion must also extend to the taxpayer who is putting his or her dreams on hold to help pay for things that the government wants to provide for people who are perfectly able to provide for on their own.

In the end, the absolute last thing I want to see come out of this tough economy is a generation of people who learn to be less self reliant, and more dependent upon their government. That's not only not good for people's psyches, it's not good for America.

Nanny Alert

Rep. Kefalas (D-Ft. Collins) and Sen Bacon (D-Ft. Collins) are sponsoring legislation to replace parental decision-making with the prudential wisdom of the state regarding keeping our children safe. Under HB 1147 as introduced, children under 18 would be required to wear a helmet while using any non-motorized wheeled transportation. This could even include your toddler riding in a shopping cart.

But don't worry, parents are given wide discretion. They can choose to let their kids use wagons or trailers (bike trailers?) without helmets as there are never accidents with either of those.

Under the bill, my two-year old, who loves the race car shopping carts at Home Depot, would need a helmet, as it's not pulled, but pushed. No kidding, see the bill language below:

(b) (I) "NONMOTORIZED WHEELED TRANSPORTATION" MEANS ANY
10 VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR USE ON PUBLIC STREETS AND
11 PREMISES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE PROPELLED
12 ENTIRELY OR PARTLY BY HUMAN POWER PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
13 TRANSPORTING ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS AND THAT ROLLS ON WHEELS
14 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A BICYCLE, SCOOTER, SKATEBOARD, OR
15 IN-LINE SKATES. "NONMOTORIZED WHEELED TRANSPORTATION" DOES NOT
16 INCLUDE A WAGON, A TRAILER, OR ANY OTHER VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT
17 THAT IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO BE TOWED OR PULLED BY AN INDIVIDUAL
18 OR BY ANY OTHER VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT.

Apparently pulling (except trailers and wagons) is less safe than pushing.

The bill was partially gutted in committee. Now, it just requires the Transportation Department, the Department of Education and the Department of Public Safety to collaborate on a cradle to 12th grade education program to scold kids and parents about helmet use.

Fortunately, their attempts to centrally control the economy by raising taxes and spending more during a recession have proven so successful, that they can now focus the attention of this government on helping you run your household.

SB- 109 Regulation of Physician-Patient Relationship for Medical Marijuana Patients

Last week, the Senate passed Senate Bill 109, to modify medical marijuana dispensary practices and try to align the current marijuana statutes with the state constitution. This bill regulates the practices of physicians in authorizing individuals for medical marijuana. Physicians are required to have an authentic relationship with their patients, possess a record-keeping system for all qualified patients, provide post-care treatment after prescribing medical marijuana, and must have a doctorate of medicine from an accredited medical school. Physicians are prohibited from accepting payment from medical marijuana dispensaries and cannot give a discount for using a particular dispensary. Additionally, Senate Bill 109 increases the qualification requirements for access to medical marijuana by creating a review board, which determines if those under the age of 21 are eligible to register.
This bill is a step in the right direction for controlling the marijuana mess that has gripped Colorado. However, while Senate Bill 109 brings much-needed regulation to the doctor patient relationship, it did not confront the broader range of much needed marijuana regulation that will help to end the flagrant abuse of the Colorado law. Stay tuned…