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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Mike the way I look at this issue is even though many people have lost jobs that have got themselves so deep into debt because of irresponsible spending should have to tap what they have in 401Ks and savings to bring them out of debt. Personally I do not really know what Debt is even though I have a mortgage and car payment then a wife out of a job from the current layoffs. Smart people will plan and save for a time of crisis. We live life almost the same way we always have even though one of us is unemployed. Yes we are utilizing the unemployment benefits that we paid into for years from the state but once that runs out we still have reserves in the bank to cover us until the other finds a job. Job market bytes right now and we keep trying to get employment. My wife spent about $8000 last year from our savings to retrain for a new job. Heck I was unemployed for over a year and spent over $12,000 grand to enhance my career while I was out of work and still had money in the bank once I got a job again.
ReplyDeleteMike I'm with you 100%. Thank you for putting out this blog, anything to connect more is GREAT!
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteJust more irresponsible liberal agenda. As my favorite Republican once said; "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so"
Keep hammering home the responsible conservative agenda.