This state is hemorrhaging productive workers and recent college graduates and that population is being replaced by welfare seekers from around the nation - and immigrants, legal or otherwise.
This document shows that casemorkers are MANDATED to be advocates for applicants - and not the objective screeners they were supposed to be.
"How do I apply for Public Assistance?
To apply, go to your local Income Support Center, also called the Welfare Office, and fill out an application. You can find your local Income Support Center by looking in the blue pages of your phone book under “New York City - Human Resources Administration - Income Support Centers” or by calling the HRA information number at (877) 472- 8411. You do not need to have a permanent address or any documents to apply, but you will need documents for your application to be complete. You should bring whatever documents you have (birth certificate, Social Security card, school I.D. or anything else that you think will be helpful). If you have tried in good faith, but failed, to get the necessary documents, your caseworker is required to help you obtain them. You can apply for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the same time that you apply for Public Assistance."
I see this happening every day. James, good luck finding empirical data - NY is very good at hiding figures. I believe you would have to file a FOIL request.
Mr. Hawley seems to imply that there are facts supporting his assertions , but I missed seeing any reference to them in his press release. It's a good rant to support his view that Downstate is trying to kill Upstate, or that the poor are the enemy of us all. But I sure would like to see a fact or two, first, before wasting the Assembly's time.
You state that the New York's population of productive workers and college grads is being replaced by welfare seekers from around the nation. This is the exact assertion that I would like to see proven. Are there indeed people in other states who say to themselves, "gosh, it's easier to get public assistance in New York, so let's move there"? I suspect that it's more likely that any people moving here are looking for work, any kind of work.
Again, I am not asking for anecdotes or information about how easy (or difficult) it is to get public assistance. I am looking for documented facts that support the assertion that people are coming to New York for the purpose of applying for public assistance. It might also be instructive to compare such facts with the evidence in other states.
The burden of proof is not on me, it's on Mr. Hawley. He's the one claiming a problem. I'd like to see the facts behind his claims. Let him do the FOIL request.
If the northeast has the best universities, and the southwest has the best weather, wouldn't it stand to reason that after graduation all the architects, lawyers and doctors move to Arizona?
Anyway... Hawley's theory could be easily tested. Anyone on public assistance should be required to wear a badge: Blue badge, native New Yorker on DSS; Red badge, non-native New Yorker on DSS; Yellow badge, native New Yorker on SSI; Green badge, non-native New Yorker on SSI; Purple badge, non-white/non-native New Yorker on DSS; Orange badge...
James sounds like u work for welfair and dont c the problem because u work there. 3 years on welfair and then ur off. we school u, put u up, now get a job and get off it. P.S. live here 12 months b4 we give u any welfair too. WAKE UP NEW YORK. the peolpe that really need it never get it.
My point has little to do with Welfare in general, whether it ought to be tougher to get or easier, or whether people need it or don't. I am simply asking for concrete evidence that Mr. Hawley's claim is true - that people deliberately move to New York because he alleges that public assistance is easier to get here. If it cannot be proven then he should withdraw his proposal.
I am curious, however, about your final comment, that "the people who need it never get it". Which people are these? How have you determined that they need "it"? Who or what is keeping them from getting "it"? And, aside from public assistance, what should all of us be doing to be mindful of these folks and helping them?
Now I have worked at a few of the human service sectors for those receiving assistance and there was rumor a few years back that a few of the Southern states were giving their people on TANF the option of a one way bus ticket to New York, since their funds had run out, and they could get assistance up here. Sort of like what Genesee County does with their homeless with a one way ticket to the shelters up in Buffalo in Rochester. Easier to pay the what...50.00 for a ticket than hundreds a month on food stamps, TANF or Medicaid.
I also remember a family that moved up from FL and immediately signed up for all the assistance they could, but about a week at the Sunset Motel sent them packing back to the sunshine state.
I am wondering if this plan would also include all of the illegal aliens or migrant workers that sign up for medicaid when they are pregnant and New York covers all of the pregnancy bills follow up and full medical coverage for the child for one year after it's birth?
Ms. Waldron, thanks for your comment, but, again, I am not looking for anecdotal testimony or rumors. I am looking for concrete proof with which Mr. Hawley can back his assertions. You and I can share opinions all day long, and that's fine with me. but Mr. Hawley is a legislator and should be pressed to provide facts when he proposes legislation.
Mr. Janofsky, also thanks for your comment. I strongly suspect Mr. Hawley's position is not designed to accomplish anything tangible in Albany and I am not worried that his proposal will prevail. But it is a waste of somebody's time. Mine. Yours. The Assembly's. The Batavian's. He is simply trying to galvanize people in his district in support of his general attitude of blame for New York's problems directed at Downstate politicians and/or the poor. It doesn't accomplish much, except win him votes in the next go-around. Just look at the survey numbers at the beginning of this thread. Without any proof for his assertions, he has gotten a lot of people to support his cause.
As this item is likely to scroll down so far as to be lost to readers of The Batavian I don't think there will be much additional comment. I will simply say again. Mr. Hawley has not demonstrated that there is a problem that needs fixing in the way he proposes.
James, if behind your arrogant and condescending comments there is a true desire to learn the facts on an issue, I suggest you get off opinion based blogs and do your own research.
I am certain that you will only accept as "facts" those data that support your obvious bias.
Sally. Bob dont waste your breath.... People like James here will spend more time and effort picking apart your responses than actually answering the question or dealing with facts. I have in my life dealt with both sides of this particular issue. Truth is the truth, James is entitled to his opinion, however his opinion like ours sadly in no way effects what Sentator Hawley is going to do, nor the truth of the matter.
This state is in sad shape and we need to curb the spending, and this is in no way an unreasonable request of our state govt to ask of assistance recipients. If college graduates and homeowners can move cause they dont like what our state gov asks then so can assistance recipients.
I appreciate all of the responses to my original post. Not one has answered my original question. Again, I am not debating whether public assistance should be easier or tougher to get, or whether some deserve it and others don't. I am simply asking if there is proof that people enter New York State for the reasons that Mr. Hawley alleges. I don't see how that question is biased or arrogant. I am genuinely interested in the answer to my question.
Kyle, James didn't pick apart anything. He asked for documentation to back up the claim regarding out-of-state applicants for public assistance.
Let's say you were going to buy a new washer... You find two in your price range. So you want to do some side-by-side comparison; decide which is the better buy. Washer A says, 'Best Buy.' Washer B says, '52 loads per 12 oz. of detergent.'
Hawley is piping, 'Best Buy.' James wants to know how many loads per amount of detergent.
Further, nobody who comments here hesitates a moment to demand proof when the GCEDC claims that some measure will create or preserve jobs. But when someone makes the same demand of Assemblyman Hawley, well, damn it, you go too far.
Brandon...I certainly have been one "who comments here" about the GCEDC's job creation claims; but I have also done significant research and found that the proof they offered was misleading and inaccurate. So, I do feel justified in expecting real proof from them. I am naturally very skeptical, so I question everything. I would never criticize anyone for demanding answers from their government. I wish more people would.
I don't see where anyone, in the above comments, was critical of James demanding proof. The comments are critical of his expectation to find it on an opinion blog, his vague definition of what would constitute proof and his unwillingness to research an issue that he obviously feels strongly about.
Mr. Renfrew...People base their opinions on all manner of things....empirical data....anecdotal evidence....gut feelings...party lines...etc....so all "proof" is not created equal. In order to form an opinion, you only have to have enough proof to satisfy yourself. You have to find the answers to all of your own questions. The level of proof required is not the same for everyone.
If you really are "genuinely interested" in finding an answer to your question, here's a link you might find interesting:
It is a research article titled:
Revisiting Shapiro: Welfare Magnets and State Residency Requirements of the 1990's
Here is the first paragraph of the Conclusion:
Social science research on welfare migration theories about the race to the bottom, political arguments for welfare-residency requirements, and the legal issues defining the constitutionality of residency requirements
all focus on distinct issues. Social scientists track migration rates to higher benefit states. Scholars of federalism identify competitive pressures between states, by looking at regional and spatial programmatic
variation. Politicians disregard empirical evidence and use welfare-magnet arguments to improve their position
in political and policy debates. Legal scholars delve into the theoretical or logical inconsistencies of Shapiro and its progeny. Consequently, empirical
research and theories of the "race to the bottom" tend to be disconnected from the politics behind the issue of welfare magnets or the federal legal
framework that structures state welfare policymaking. Yet, social science research is essential to proper judicial management of the current round of welfare-residency cases, particularly given the changes
that have occurred in American welfare since Shapiro.
You won't find THE answer, but you may find YOUR answer.
FWIW: I take a very technical definition of things.
Often people refer to what is posted in this thread as "blogs"
Comments are not blogs.
A blog is a web site dedicated to the reverse chronological presentation of information.
Blogs are a collection such sites.
When information is posted on a blog it is called a post. The item titled "Today's Poll: Should New York have a residency requirement to receive social services?" is a post.
Under that post are comments by people who have read the post. Those are called comments, not blogs.
Just a long-time pet peeve as far as the correct nomenclature.
Don't ask me why I care. I couldn't answer the question.
And FWIW, I found James' comments quite reasonable.
A comment need not be just opinion, as Joanne has admirably proven many times in the past couple of years. A comment can be quite factual.
There's no gold standard for whether a comment is opinion or facts. (Just like there's no gold standard for grammar, spelling or punctuation -- a comment is what the commenter makes it and should (within the rules of the site) be accepted as such).
This last comment is the most helpful of all. Thank you. Ms. Rock, for the link to the study. I am genuinely interested in the answer to my question because so many politicians have made the claim through the years that New York is, as the excerpt names it, "a welfare magnet". As far as I know, none of them have ever offered proof for their assertions. It may be nothing more than bluster ("welfare cheats", "welfare queens", etc.) or anecdote ("my brother in law used to know someone who ..."). But it certainly plays well. Obviously, answering the question might be complicated, and the linked study is very helpful. I didn't read it word for word yet, but it does suggest at one point that there is evidence that people actually move to states with more restrictive residency at least as often as they do states where restrictions are lighter, maybe more often. There are all kinds of factors that might go into a decision to move to New York from some other state. I am happy to sort through the different studies, models, and conclusions that might be published on the subject and would enjoy talking about it. The assertion made by Mr. Hawley might even prove to be factual, but I can't make that judgment based on him not offering proof of any kind. Should I be the one researching this matter? Remember, it is Mr. Hawley who has made an assertion that it is a fact, and who is offering legislation, not me. I think the burden is on him to offer his proof before he offers legislation. Thanks again, Ms. Rock.
JoAnne, I apologize for the generality of my assertion. I certainly didn't mean to include all people who question the GCEDC, as I include myself in that group.
My comment was aimed at two comments made by Bob Harker and Kyle Couchman which seemed to dismiss James Renfrew's question with assertions of bias and of having an ulterior motive - as if questioning the Assemblyman's proposed legislation was an act of foolishness. Those assertions struck me as a bit hypocritical in light of the fact that both of those commentators have added excellent and poignant criticism to previous threads on GCEDC news items. So I pointed that out.
Again, JoAnne, I did not intend to paint all critics of the GCEDC as being hypocrites. Most people here have a healthy skepticism...I just wish it were more universally applied.
No apology necessary Brandon. Your point is well taken.
James...your welcome! To answer your question:
"Should I be the one researching this matter?"
It's not that you're doing Mr. Hawley's job, you're doing your job by being an informed voter on an issue of importance to you. Unless of course, you plan to vote a straight party line regardless of the issues; in which case, I would say...don't bother with the research...:)
BTW, have you considered writing an email to Mr. Hawley?
For what it's worth, there is an oft repeated tale of the 'chicken bone express.' My recollection of the story: southern states would put their welfare applicants on a north-bound train after supplying them with a chicken box lunch. On a similar note, I have heard that NYC used to send their cases to Sullivan County, paying for their stay in any of the forlorn hotels and motels clinging to the former Borsht Belt resort area. NYC paid (of course) until the clients met the residency requirement to be considered the responsibility of Sullivan County.
To what degree either of these unsubstantiated stories bears resemblance to truth is subject to debate.
Revisiting the first tale made me think- if we restored the railroads to their former status, maybe we could put all of the welfare applicants in coaches and shuttle them from one state to the next- eventually each state would be shouldering an equal share of the public support burden. ...Wonder if Steve gave that solution some thought.
CM,
After all is said and done what do you think is wrong with a residency requirement? If you want taxpayer assistance from New Yorkers, should you be a New Yorker?
Ms. Rock, yes, a printed letter is on the way to Mr. Hawley. I hope to get a response sooner than the 6-9 month turn-around time Mr. Lee was known for (in one case getting the same form letter I had received a year before).
John, a residency requirement sounds logical. Unfortunately, it is not logic that brought Mr. Hawley to sponsor a residency requirement; it's politics. This is merely a cynical tactic from the paint-the-blame-on-someone-with-no-clout bag of tricks. If all of the IDA chiefs who got $60,000 bonuses, all the corporations that got $1M per job tax breaks and grants, all the invisible money piddled away in discretionary spending were curtailed... Instead we scrutinize the most disadvantaged New Yorkers, fussing over residency. ...Never mind the millionaires and billionaires who milk the system. They earned the right to rip off the taxpayer. They have the Forbes magazine certificate of approval.
If NY is the welfare mecca and a residency requirement (what? six months?) were to go into effect- Won't those who find welfare so appealing (imagine that) establish residency and wait out the six months? What has been solved? I have a better idea. To heck with the welfare residency idea. Instead, merge all the Independent Agencies' funds into the state's budget. Account for every dime (in and out), examine every pay-out, thoroughly, issue indictments if warranted and never let public money be spent without oversight again.
This was not Hawley's idea. It was part of a general welfare reform package of 1997. It is also, likely, unconstitutional. Similar laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court as violations of the fourteenth amendment.
I'd be very interested in
I'd be very interested in some hard evidence that this is a problem needing fixing. I'm not asking for anecdotes.
It's unfortunate that this is
It's unfortunate that this is even a question.
This state is hemorrhaging productive workers and recent college graduates and that population is being replaced by welfare seekers from around the nation - and immigrants, legal or otherwise.
This document shows that casemorkers are MANDATED to be advocates for applicants - and not the objective screeners they were supposed to be.
"How do I apply for Public Assistance?
To apply, go to your local Income Support Center, also called the Welfare Office, and fill out an application. You can find your local Income Support Center by looking in the blue pages of your phone book under “New York City - Human Resources Administration - Income Support Centers” or by calling the HRA information number at (877) 472- 8411. You do not need to have a permanent address or any documents to apply, but you will need documents for your application to be complete. You should bring whatever documents you have (birth certificate, Social Security card, school I.D. or anything else that you think will be helpful). If you have tried in good faith, but failed, to get the necessary documents, your caseworker is required to help you obtain them. You can apply for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the same time that you apply for Public Assistance."
I see this happening every day. James, good luck finding empirical data - NY is very good at hiding figures. I believe you would have to file a FOIL request.
Mr. Harker, thanks for your
Mr. Harker, thanks for your thoughts.
Mr. Hawley seems to imply that there are facts supporting his assertions , but I missed seeing any reference to them in his press release. It's a good rant to support his view that Downstate is trying to kill Upstate, or that the poor are the enemy of us all. But I sure would like to see a fact or two, first, before wasting the Assembly's time.
You state that the New York's population of productive workers and college grads is being replaced by welfare seekers from around the nation. This is the exact assertion that I would like to see proven. Are there indeed people in other states who say to themselves, "gosh, it's easier to get public assistance in New York, so let's move there"? I suspect that it's more likely that any people moving here are looking for work, any kind of work.
Again, I am not asking for anecdotes or information about how easy (or difficult) it is to get public assistance. I am looking for documented facts that support the assertion that people are coming to New York for the purpose of applying for public assistance. It might also be instructive to compare such facts with the evidence in other states.
The burden of proof is not on me, it's on Mr. Hawley. He's the one claiming a problem. I'd like to see the facts behind his claims. Let him do the FOIL request.
If the northeast has the best
If the northeast has the best universities, and the southwest has the best weather, wouldn't it stand to reason that after graduation all the architects, lawyers and doctors move to Arizona?
Anyway... Hawley's theory could be easily tested. Anyone on public assistance should be required to wear a badge: Blue badge, native New Yorker on DSS; Red badge, non-native New Yorker on DSS; Yellow badge, native New Yorker on SSI; Green badge, non-native New Yorker on SSI; Purple badge, non-white/non-native New Yorker on DSS; Orange badge...
James sounds like u work for
James sounds like u work for welfair and dont c the problem because u work there. 3 years on welfair and then ur off. we school u, put u up, now get a job and get off it. P.S. live here 12 months b4 we give u any welfair too. WAKE UP NEW YORK. the peolpe that really need it never get it.
Mr. VanDeWalker, I do not
Mr. VanDeWalker,
I do not work for "welfair" as you put it.
My point has little to do with Welfare in general, whether it ought to be tougher to get or easier, or whether people need it or don't. I am simply asking for concrete evidence that Mr. Hawley's claim is true - that people deliberately move to New York because he alleges that public assistance is easier to get here. If it cannot be proven then he should withdraw his proposal.
I am curious, however, about your final comment, that "the people who need it never get it". Which people are these? How have you determined that they need "it"? Who or what is keeping them from getting "it"? And, aside from public assistance, what should all of us be doing to be mindful of these folks and helping them?
Do any of you really think
Do any of you really think Silver will buy into this?
Now I have worked at a few of
Now I have worked at a few of the human service sectors for those receiving assistance and there was rumor a few years back that a few of the Southern states were giving their people on TANF the option of a one way bus ticket to New York, since their funds had run out, and they could get assistance up here. Sort of like what Genesee County does with their homeless with a one way ticket to the shelters up in Buffalo in Rochester. Easier to pay the what...50.00 for a ticket than hundreds a month on food stamps, TANF or Medicaid.
I also remember a family that moved up from FL and immediately signed up for all the assistance they could, but about a week at the Sunset Motel sent them packing back to the sunshine state.
I am wondering if this plan would also include all of the illegal aliens or migrant workers that sign up for medicaid when they are pregnant and New York covers all of the pregnancy bills follow up and full medical coverage for the child for one year after it's birth?
Ms. Waldron, thanks for your
Ms. Waldron, thanks for your comment, but, again, I am not looking for anecdotal testimony or rumors. I am looking for concrete proof with which Mr. Hawley can back his assertions. You and I can share opinions all day long, and that's fine with me. but Mr. Hawley is a legislator and should be pressed to provide facts when he proposes legislation.
Mr. Janofsky, also thanks for your comment. I strongly suspect Mr. Hawley's position is not designed to accomplish anything tangible in Albany and I am not worried that his proposal will prevail. But it is a waste of somebody's time. Mine. Yours. The Assembly's. The Batavian's. He is simply trying to galvanize people in his district in support of his general attitude of blame for New York's problems directed at Downstate politicians and/or the poor. It doesn't accomplish much, except win him votes in the next go-around. Just look at the survey numbers at the beginning of this thread. Without any proof for his assertions, he has gotten a lot of people to support his cause.
As this item is likely to scroll down so far as to be lost to readers of The Batavian I don't think there will be much additional comment. I will simply say again. Mr. Hawley has not demonstrated that there is a problem that needs fixing in the way he proposes.
James, if behind your
James, if behind your arrogant and condescending comments there is a true desire to learn the facts on an issue, I suggest you get off opinion based blogs and do your own research.
I am certain that you will only accept as "facts" those data that support your obvious bias.
Sally. Bob dont waste your
Sally. Bob dont waste your breath.... People like James here will spend more time and effort picking apart your responses than actually answering the question or dealing with facts. I have in my life dealt with both sides of this particular issue. Truth is the truth, James is entitled to his opinion, however his opinion like ours sadly in no way effects what Sentator Hawley is going to do, nor the truth of the matter.
This state is in sad shape and we need to curb the spending, and this is in no way an unreasonable request of our state govt to ask of assistance recipients. If college graduates and homeowners can move cause they dont like what our state gov asks then so can assistance recipients.
I appreciate all of the
I appreciate all of the responses to my original post. Not one has answered my original question. Again, I am not debating whether public assistance should be easier or tougher to get, or whether some deserve it and others don't. I am simply asking if there is proof that people enter New York State for the reasons that Mr. Hawley alleges. I don't see how that question is biased or arrogant. I am genuinely interested in the answer to my question.
Kyle, James didn't pick apart
Kyle, James didn't pick apart anything. He asked for documentation to back up the claim regarding out-of-state applicants for public assistance.
Let's say you were going to buy a new washer... You find two in your price range. So you want to do some side-by-side comparison; decide which is the better buy. Washer A says, 'Best Buy.' Washer B says, '52 loads per 12 oz. of detergent.'
Hawley is piping, 'Best Buy.' James wants to know how many loads per amount of detergent.
Further, nobody who comments
Further, nobody who comments here hesitates a moment to demand proof when the GCEDC claims that some measure will create or preserve jobs. But when someone makes the same demand of Assemblyman Hawley, well, damn it, you go too far.
Brandon...I certainly have
Brandon...I certainly have been one "who comments here" about the GCEDC's job creation claims; but I have also done significant research and found that the proof they offered was misleading and inaccurate. So, I do feel justified in expecting real proof from them. I am naturally very skeptical, so I question everything. I would never criticize anyone for demanding answers from their government. I wish more people would.
I don't see where anyone, in the above comments, was critical of James demanding proof. The comments are critical of his expectation to find it on an opinion blog, his vague definition of what would constitute proof and his unwillingness to research an issue that he obviously feels strongly about.
Mr. Renfrew...People base their opinions on all manner of things....empirical data....anecdotal evidence....gut feelings...party lines...etc....so all "proof" is not created equal. In order to form an opinion, you only have to have enough proof to satisfy yourself. You have to find the answers to all of your own questions. The level of proof required is not the same for everyone.
If you really are "genuinely interested" in finding an answer to your question, here's a link you might find interesting:
http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/parsnk/2008-9/POL%20680-Fall/documents/POL%2068…
It is a research article titled:
Revisiting Shapiro: Welfare Magnets and State Residency Requirements of the 1990's
Here is the first paragraph of the Conclusion:
Social science research on welfare migration theories about the race to the bottom, political arguments for welfare-residency requirements, and the legal issues defining the constitutionality of residency requirements
all focus on distinct issues. Social scientists track migration rates to higher benefit states. Scholars of federalism identify competitive pressures between states, by looking at regional and spatial programmatic
variation. Politicians disregard empirical evidence and use welfare-magnet arguments to improve their position
in political and policy debates. Legal scholars delve into the theoretical or logical inconsistencies of Shapiro and its progeny. Consequently, empirical
research and theories of the "race to the bottom" tend to be disconnected from the politics behind the issue of welfare magnets or the federal legal
framework that structures state welfare policymaking. Yet, social science research is essential to proper judicial management of the current round of welfare-residency cases, particularly given the changes
that have occurred in American welfare since Shapiro.
You won't find THE answer, but you may find YOUR answer.
FWIW: I take a very technical
FWIW: I take a very technical definition of things.
Often people refer to what is posted in this thread as "blogs"
Comments are not blogs.
A blog is a web site dedicated to the reverse chronological presentation of information.
Blogs are a collection such sites.
When information is posted on a blog it is called a post. The item titled "Today's Poll: Should New York have a residency requirement to receive social services?" is a post.
Under that post are comments by people who have read the post. Those are called comments, not blogs.
Just a long-time pet peeve as far as the correct nomenclature.
Don't ask me why I care. I couldn't answer the question.
And FWIW, I found James' comments quite reasonable.
A comment need not be just opinion, as Joanne has admirably proven many times in the past couple of years. A comment can be quite factual.
There's no gold standard for whether a comment is opinion or facts. (Just like there's no gold standard for grammar, spelling or punctuation -- a comment is what the commenter makes it and should (within the rules of the site) be accepted as such).
This last comment is the most
This last comment is the most helpful of all. Thank you. Ms. Rock, for the link to the study. I am genuinely interested in the answer to my question because so many politicians have made the claim through the years that New York is, as the excerpt names it, "a welfare magnet". As far as I know, none of them have ever offered proof for their assertions. It may be nothing more than bluster ("welfare cheats", "welfare queens", etc.) or anecdote ("my brother in law used to know someone who ..."). But it certainly plays well. Obviously, answering the question might be complicated, and the linked study is very helpful. I didn't read it word for word yet, but it does suggest at one point that there is evidence that people actually move to states with more restrictive residency at least as often as they do states where restrictions are lighter, maybe more often. There are all kinds of factors that might go into a decision to move to New York from some other state. I am happy to sort through the different studies, models, and conclusions that might be published on the subject and would enjoy talking about it. The assertion made by Mr. Hawley might even prove to be factual, but I can't make that judgment based on him not offering proof of any kind. Should I be the one researching this matter? Remember, it is Mr. Hawley who has made an assertion that it is a fact, and who is offering legislation, not me. I think the burden is on him to offer his proof before he offers legislation. Thanks again, Ms. Rock.
JoAnne, I apologize for the
JoAnne, I apologize for the generality of my assertion. I certainly didn't mean to include all people who question the GCEDC, as I include myself in that group.
My comment was aimed at two comments made by Bob Harker and Kyle Couchman which seemed to dismiss James Renfrew's question with assertions of bias and of having an ulterior motive - as if questioning the Assemblyman's proposed legislation was an act of foolishness. Those assertions struck me as a bit hypocritical in light of the fact that both of those commentators have added excellent and poignant criticism to previous threads on GCEDC news items. So I pointed that out.
Again, JoAnne, I did not intend to paint all critics of the GCEDC as being hypocrites. Most people here have a healthy skepticism...I just wish it were more universally applied.
No apology necessary Brandon.
No apology necessary Brandon. Your point is well taken.
James...your welcome! To answer your question:
"Should I be the one researching this matter?"
It's not that you're doing Mr. Hawley's job, you're doing your job by being an informed voter on an issue of importance to you. Unless of course, you plan to vote a straight party line regardless of the issues; in which case, I would say...don't bother with the research...:)
BTW, have you considered writing an email to Mr. Hawley?
For what it's worth, there is
For what it's worth, there is an oft repeated tale of the 'chicken bone express.' My recollection of the story: southern states would put their welfare applicants on a north-bound train after supplying them with a chicken box lunch. On a similar note, I have heard that NYC used to send their cases to Sullivan County, paying for their stay in any of the forlorn hotels and motels clinging to the former Borsht Belt resort area. NYC paid (of course) until the clients met the residency requirement to be considered the responsibility of Sullivan County.
To what degree either of these unsubstantiated stories bears resemblance to truth is subject to debate.
Revisiting the first tale made me think- if we restored the railroads to their former status, maybe we could put all of the welfare applicants in coaches and shuttle them from one state to the next- eventually each state would be shouldering an equal share of the public support burden. ...Wonder if Steve gave that solution some thought.
CM, After all is said and
CM,
After all is said and done what do you think is wrong with a residency requirement? If you want taxpayer assistance from New Yorkers, should you be a New Yorker?
Ms. Rock, yes, a printed
Ms. Rock, yes, a printed letter is on the way to Mr. Hawley. I hope to get a response sooner than the 6-9 month turn-around time Mr. Lee was known for (in one case getting the same form letter I had received a year before).
I interned at the State
I interned at the State Assembly in Albany, I can tell you that the best way to get in contact with your elected officials is to call their office.
John, a residency requirement
John, a residency requirement sounds logical. Unfortunately, it is not logic that brought Mr. Hawley to sponsor a residency requirement; it's politics. This is merely a cynical tactic from the paint-the-blame-on-someone-with-no-clout bag of tricks. If all of the IDA chiefs who got $60,000 bonuses, all the corporations that got $1M per job tax breaks and grants, all the invisible money piddled away in discretionary spending were curtailed... Instead we scrutinize the most disadvantaged New Yorkers, fussing over residency. ...Never mind the millionaires and billionaires who milk the system. They earned the right to rip off the taxpayer. They have the Forbes magazine certificate of approval.
CM, I didn't ask about Mr.
CM,
I didn't ask about Mr. Hawley's motivation, any more than your motivation for the expected criticism of anything Hawley does.
I wanted to know your opinion, and it seems you agree with residency rules for welfare. So do I.
If NY is the welfare mecca
If NY is the welfare mecca and a residency requirement (what? six months?) were to go into effect- Won't those who find welfare so appealing (imagine that) establish residency and wait out the six months? What has been solved? I have a better idea. To heck with the welfare residency idea. Instead, merge all the Independent Agencies' funds into the state's budget. Account for every dime (in and out), examine every pay-out, thoroughly, issue indictments if warranted and never let public money be spent without oversight again.
That would be meaningful
That would be meaningful welfare reform.
CM, Isn't eliminating all
CM,
Isn't eliminating all those independent agencies one of our new Governors top agenda items? It will be fun to watch if he can do it.
This was not Hawley's idea.
This was not Hawley's idea. It was part of a general welfare reform package of 1997. It is also, likely, unconstitutional. Similar laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court as violations of the fourteenth amendment.
Maybe it is, John. It was
Maybe it is, John. It was part of my platform, a year ago.