pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (12/13/83)
News item from Chicago Sun-times, Dec. 10, 1983. "When Ann Martin of Houston told the Houston Post how she was struggling to support a teenage daughter and a 10-year-old son stricken with a fatal brain disease on $550 a month in government aid, sympathetic Houston residents sent her money to help out. But when she reported the donations to her caseworker, Martin was told that she would not get her January welfare check and that her food stamps were going to be cut. Furthermore, Martin has been told that she cannot return the checks to Post readers. Elizabeth Quiroz of the Texas Human Resources Department said if Martin deliberately shunned income, her welfare and food stamps could be terminated." I'm glad to see that people in Texas really know how to handle their Welfare Queens. Up here in Chicago, the Liberal Do-Gooders actually take up collections for these Welfare Ripoffs! They actually buy presents for needy children, and make up food baskets! It gets especially bad up here at Christmas, what with people standing on street corners extorting money from passers-by so that they can run soup kitchens for the So-Called Hungry ( There are no hungry people! Edwin Meese, the senior advisor to President Reagan, told us so! ). I bet you Texans don't have to put up with all those charities and their begging. I think that Ms. Quiroz should launch a full-scale investigation into this blatant attempt to rip off Texas taxpayers! Why isn't the teen-age daughter out working? She's probably in school getting her head filled with Commie-Symp Propaganda! And why do you Texans have to support the son anyway? If you just let him starve to death, you would have more tax money left to spend on important things, like National Defense of the American Way of Life. Do you Texans realize that if you cut them off welfare for a whole year that you could save $6,600? Why, thats enough money to buy some really important Defense Material, like a set of rubber tips for the Navigator's chair in a B-52! Phil Polli ihuxl!pvp P.S. From what I have been reading lately on the net, I know that several of you probably are cheering me on. Please don't send mail to me telling me how right I am, I'm depressed enough as it is.
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/13/83)
It's not just Texas that treats people receiving public assistance that way... Imagine that you're a single mom with one child and don't have a lot of skills. Taking a job for minimum wage and getting someone to look after the child is pretty hard cause the child care support takes a lot of money. Anyway, you find yourself on public assistance. Well, public assistance has decided that you and your child can survive on about $230 a month (or so...). Needless to say, that's quite minimal. You might be eligible for foodstamps, but if you live with someone else that's not on public assistance, you have to proove you don't eat with them. If you're honest, you're hurt... So, you decide to do something to earn a little bit of extra money. You keep a child in your home from time to time or you help clean someone's house or maybe you belong to a church and they decide to give you some money. Maybe you do a little bit of all three. So, somehow you get about $100 or $150 extra income. This brings your income up to maybe $330 or $380. You're rich, right? Actually, no. You see, you're honest (or naive or something) and when you go to the public assistance place again to fill in forms, etc (you hate going there because they treat like you're worth nothing, anyway, but you go), they ask you to list all your sources of income. So, you tell them that you've gotten busy and supplemented your income a little. So, they want to know why you didn't tell them sooner, but, in any case, they immediately reduce your benefits by the amount of money you make -- now your public assistance is down to $130 or $80... and your total income is back at $230. I guess I don't object to them reducing your public assistance some when you have other sources of income, but I don't think they should reduce it by the total amount that you make since you have no motivation whatsoever to go out and try and help yourself. If you do, then you're much better off being dihonest and not telling them about it since it is sheer frustration otherwise. Then, after you get "used" to being dishonest... I think we'd be a lot better off treating these folks with some respect and, instead of frustrating them, encourage them to start working by letting them keep some of what they earn. Who knows? Maybe the once in a while babysitting will turn into a full time occupation with the advantage of being able to stay home with your own child. It could be cheaper in the long run... -Liz Allen -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay