welfaresign

Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?

That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

County welfare directors are “in shock” at the very idea of getting rid of CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state’s history, said Bruce Wagstaff, director of the Department of Human Assistance in Sacramento.

“It’s difficult to come up with the right adjective to react to this,” Wagstaff said. “It would be devastating to the people we serve.”

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance, said California is in an unprecedented fiscal situation that has made all programs, from education to human services, vulnerable to deep and painful reductions.

“I don’t wish for a moment to minimize the profound impact” that eliminating CalWORKs would have, Palmer said. “But the easy decisions are way past being in the rearview mirror for us. We face the specter of California not having cash on hand to pay its bills in July.”

Wagstaff and other administrators are betting that the state will rescue the “welfare to work” program. But they are bracing for cuts that would slash benefits to the lowest levels since the late 1990s, when CalWORKs began as part of the federal government’s bold reform of the welfare system.

Great! Now the surrounding states will need to put up a border fence.




  1. MikeN says:

    Misleading headline. Cuts to the level of the late 1990s. How will they ever handle that?

  2. mmmm says:

    Yea right……Another big scare tactic by the Gov to try and get a bailout. They will screw over the hard working taxpayer in Kali a 100 times over before they cut off entitlements to the masses. They know damn well what chaos will happen if the checks and food stamps stop coming. The King riots will look like Sunday School.

  3. Ah_Yea says:

    Yes, the entitlements will stay. Republican governor scaring a Democratic legislature into concessions.

    A pretty good tactic, too. So many politicians have promised so much to those who earn so few…

  4. madtruckman says:

    if they were to just do away with benefits for ILLEGAL immigrants, this problem wouldnt be there.

  5. George R. says:

    Here is how it works in California:

    After I lost my job (company went bankrupt) I took a junior college course to try to pick up some more skills. This was a fairly humiliating experience for someone decades after university graduation, but that’s life.

    In my class are welfare mothers who are FULLY supported to go to school; free daycare for their kids, free money, free tuition, free books, free tutor programs, and even free paper and pencils (I am not kidding you). So, what do they do with all this? They sit around complaining about how the government should give them all jobs, but won’t. They don’t learn anything in school, and have no intention of ever entering the work place. But by playing this system, they get at least TWO YEARS of total welfare and a nice college campus to lounge around on.

    You’ve got no idea how broad and deep the welfare system here is unless you get to see some of it in action. It’s invisible to the naked eye.

    These women typically have three children from three different fathers. Meanwhile, many of my hard-working friends and I can barely afford to start a small family. It’s incredible to see it.

  6. GigG says:

    Aren’t California and New York the only two states where a single, able bodied person with no children can get welfare?

  7. The Warden says:

    uh, California is 24 Billion Dollars ($24,000,000,000 or 160,000 Bugatti Veyrons at 1.5 mil each) in the red and they are calling this the most successful welfare program yet?!

    And calling Ahnold a republican is like calling Ted Kennedy healthy.

  8. faxon says:

    Please please please make this be true.

  9. bill says:

    Cut it off… and fire the HUGE political machine that supports it.

    Mail them a map with California blanked out. and a big arrows pointing elsewhere.

    George #5 was entirely accurate.

    Hint: “It’s over go elsewhere”

  10. chris says:

    @madtruckman – spot on

    Next, we need to revisit the “anchor baby” amendment to the constitution. It was designed to make kids of legal immigrants during the Euro-flood of the late 1800’s citizens of the US, not to allow some baby factory to get pregnant in Mexico, step over the border and drop a kid, and have that kid be a citizen.

  11. killer duck says:

    The Octomom is totally f’d if this happens.
    …and deservedly so.

    I’ve said it before…rent Idiocracy, the film by Mike Judge.

    You have to have a license to drive, to own a gun, or to fish. Why not a license to have a kid? Where is that covered exactly in the constitution? Where does someone else’s right to pursue “life, liberty and happiness” totally step on my right to do the same? When 30% of my paycheck goes to taxes so some fat lazy bitches can eat Twinkies and fart out kids left and right, I would say we have reached the point of infringing on my rights.

    …and I’m not even a republican.

  12. Patrick says:

    And O’mama’s econ plan is modeled on CA’s…

  13. Sea Lawyer says:

    #10, actually, that clause was written to force the states to recognize, and grant legal rights/protections to the newly freed former slaves; and to also bind the states under the restrictions of the Bill of Rights (which they had not previously been).

  14. sargasso says:

    A moral dilemma. Let’s hope the politicians don’t get involved.

  15. TheCommodore says:

    Hmm, if my illegal immigrant welfare existance were threatened, I’d be more tempted to run to Canada, or to one of the states begging for workers, like North Dakota.

    The only fix to all this is to restore the economy, and part of THAT will involve pulling some production out of other parts of the world. Yeah, call it protectionism if you want, but when we don’t even grow our own food, you know we have a problem.

  16. jescott418 says:

    Its probably not too far from the truth though. If its not welfare then they will probably cut something else. If you have a deficit then eventually you will have to get more revunue or you will have to cut programs.
    Or I guess you can get a China American express card and just charge it.

  17. Patrick says:

    #16 I think California’s are tired of paying some the highest taxes in the nation to get the worst gov’t money can buy. Is that AMEX card red? 😉

  18. kjackman says:

    FTA:

    Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?

    That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

    No, the doomsday scenario is what happens if they don’t do away with welfare, or at least radically reform it, along with other poorly-planned benefits programs.

    …CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state’s history…

    And just how do they measure “success?” By the number of people being served by the program? That’s usually how it’s done, because that’s how they maintain their budget levels year by year. That’s why you see agencies actually advertising to get people on food stamps.

    The real measure of success should be the number of people who no longer need this assistance.

    Yes, I know they’re calling it a “welfare to work” program. It’s B.S. That’s like calling the prison a “correctional” institution. You’ll find a few anecdotes of this program’s welfare recipients climbing their way back into productive society, but it’s the exception, not the rule.

    Besides, I seem to recall a federal “welfare to work” program, much debated in the early 90’s, in the Clinton administration. What do they need a separate state program for?

  19. Thomas says:

    It portends badly for the nation as a whole if the State with one of, if not the, largest per capita tax rates cannot sustain itself. It means that as the population grows, an ever larger percentage of tax is necessary to maintain it. That makes for a compelling argument to split CA into smaller States and to reduce the size of the Federal disposable budget.

  20. LibertyLover says:

    Great! Now the surrounding states will need to put up a border fence.

    Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are.

  21. jbenson2 says:

    I wonder if Mexico will start pushing for a fence to keep the U.S. welfare Gringos from slipping across the border for free handouts in Tiajuana.

  22. chuck says:

    CA is facing a $25 BILLION budget deficit.
    The article says that if the entire CalWorks program was cut, it would save $157 million.

    That leaves $24.943 BILLION to cut (or increase taxes to pay for).

  23. brm says:

    #23:

    Merrill Lynch got $10 billion in bailout money, so why get mad about the CEO’s $1.2 million office renovation?

    There’s still $9.988 billion left!

  24. Troublemaker says:

    Yeah, cutting out welfare should cut down about 5% of the defect.

    How about cutting the pay of congressional office assistants, who are usually the children of congressmen/women, down from the $2,000-3,000 that they get a week to something like $400-500 a week, which is more in line with what an entry level job like that is worth.

  25. Grandpa says:

    Perfect Republicanism! They have succeeded in every way.

  26. Hmeyers says:

    #14 for the win!

  27. SparkyOne says:

    “California to Do Away with Welfare?”

    Does this mean that elected positions in the California government will no longer be paid?

  28. amodedoma says:

    Un frackin believable, another case of throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water. There’s a lot of waste, so streamline it, reform it. I know this may be hard for you to believe but welfare doesn’t just help octo-moms and illegal immigrants. My Dad was a single father of 3 back during the recession in the 70’s. The factories closed, there wasn’t any work to be found. Even with welfare we barely made it through. A curse to those who wish to enjoy the benefits of a society yet contribute nothing.

  29. Hmeyers says:

    @Sparkyone

    I think elected officials pay should be performance based.

    Considering they all have managed to create a deep recession, they should all vote themselves a pay cut!

  30. Vonchiz says:

    The picture is actually from Texas… F.M. ### is a Texas naming scheme, and not all of CA has exit numbers.

    All I have to say on the actual issue is this:
    CA = most populous state in Union
    CA = WORLD’S 7th largest GDP
    CA = one of the most, if not THE most heavily taxed state in the Union
    CA = most broke state in the Union

    So WTF is all the money going? Sorry. Not my problem the stupid F@#$KS in your statehouse can’t balance the checking account.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5780 access attempts in the last 7 days.