Trump And Vance Should Immediately Push A Populist, Family-Friendly Agenda
Trump and Vance need to make dramatic populist moves now while GOP voters' appetite for economic libertarianism has dwindled.Trump and Vance need to make dramatic populist moves now while GOP voters' appetite for economic libertarianism has dwindled.3 Reasons Obamacare Spending Has Exploded Under Democrats
The increased subsidies Democrats passed in 2021-2022 should be allowed to expire at the end of next year rather than be made permanent.Minnesota Democrats push basic income program where illegal aliens can qualify for monthly handout of $500 or more
Minnesota Democrats want to implement a freewheeling basic income program that would redistribute taxpayer money to residents identifying as needy — including illegal aliens.
House File 2666, sponsored by Democratic state Rep. Athena Hollins, cleared the House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee on a voice vote Tuesday. Since the Democratic Party controls the office of the governor and both chambers of the legislature, the bill stands a good chance of success.
If harmonized with the state Senate's companion bill, Senate File 2559, and then implemented, $100 million would be sucked out of the General Fund in fiscal year 2025. This money would, in turn, be granted out to intermediaries. These nonprofits would be tasked doling out cash in monthly increments ranging from $350 to $1,200 to those individuals and families they deem deserving for a period of 12 to 24 months.
To qualify for this taxpayer-funded handout, prospective recipients must "be receiving public benefits or have a household income less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines." Recipients also apparently don't have to prove their financial need with paperwork or proper identification.
The bill explicitly states that "grantees may set other eligibility requirements for the eligible recipients it serves under this section but must not require any other income, proof of residency or citizenship, or identifying documentation of any recipient."
Once an individual is enrolled in the program on the basis of an attestation that they qualify, they will not have to recertify. Hollins confirmed that even if a recipient gets a good job the day after qualifying, they would get to continue to draw payments.
Handouts will also not be considered as income, meaning recipients' eligibility for other welfare programs will not be affected.
Republican state Rep. Walter Hudson was critical of the proposed legislation during Tuesday's committee hearing, noting, "I think I know what this bill is trying to do, but I am confused as to the method that it is utilizing in order to do it."
"We have mechanisms within the state in order to facilitate [a universal basic income]," said Hudson. "We have our Department of Revenue. They could identify those who meet an income qualification and then provide monthly deposits through a secure cash-benefit system. Instead, what this bill does is it gets middlemen involved including nonprofits. As I see it, there are no quality controls on those nonprofits."
Hudson noted further the bill provides for no ways to "verify who's getting the money"; to ensure there won't be abuses among the intermediaries such as kickback schemes; and to regulate how intermediaries spend money on their employees.
Republican state Rep. Ben Davis indicated the bill also lacks any measure to ensure the taxpayer-funded handouts won't ultimately be blown on addicts' drug habits.
"I've worked in alcohol and drug abuse recovery programs for 12 years, and I've seen a lot of abuse with government funds being spent on peoples' addictions," said Davis. "I would highly encourage us to have something in here that says, 'Hey, you got to turn in some receipts on what you are spending this money on.' We need more accountability."
Democrats were not overly concerned about the potential for abuse. They did, however, seize upon Hudson's mention that the legislation would enable illegal aliens to draw monthly payments.
Hollins, the bill's sponsor, said in response, "I do think that it is important that we extend this — because it's a pilot program — to individuals who may not have documentation."
Hollins further suggested that it was prudent to include illegal aliens in the program in the interest of collecting more data to know how "to best implement something like this in the future if we wanted to do something at the statewide level that identifies all the people."
Democratic state Rep. Liz Lee argued that illegal aliens should be eligible because they allegedly pay taxes to the state.
"The Minnesota tax base is funded by undocumented and noncitizens," said Lee.
State Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn echoed Lee, claiming, "We earn $5.8 billion dollars off the backs of undocumented immigrants in the state of Minnesota. ... They are paying taxes, and we should be supporting them."
— (@)
The rollout of universal basic income without a requirement that recipients provide legal documentation would be a bonus for those illegal aliens already drawing heavily on federal welfare benefits.
Citing data from the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation, the Center for Immigration Studies concluded in a December report that an estimated 59.4% of households headed by illegal aliens drew on at least one major taxpayer-funded welfare support.
As a cohort, illegal aliens reportedly use every welfare program at "statistically significant higher rates than the U.S.-born, except for [Supplemental Security Income], [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families], and housing."
The House Committee on Homeland Security indicated in a November 2023 report that "for every one million parolees released into the United States on [Department of Homeland Security Alejandro] Mayorkas' watch, the cost in federal welfare benefits that will be incurred could total $3 billion annually, with those costs starting to kick in January 2026."
Blaze News previously reported that the estimated annual cost to house known gotaways and illegal aliens released into the country under Biden's watch is $451 billion.
Alpha News reported that HF2666 will next be taken up by the state House Human Services Finance Committee.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Residents who have yet to flee San Francisco vote to screen welfare recipients for drugs and expand police powers
San Francisco voters were afforded an opportunity Tuesday to begin slowly turning their filthy, crime-ridden city around — and they actually took it. Voters elected to make it easier for police to do their jobs and to cut off local welfare recipients who refused to undergo drug tests.
The backdrop
San Francisco has a 1-rating on Neighborhood Scout's crime index, where 100 is safest. The chances of becoming a victim of a property crime or a violent crime are reportedly 1 in 17 and 1 in 148, respectively.
According to the San Francisco Police Department, the city saw 53 murders; 227 rapes; 2,741 robberies; 2,482 assaults; 5,658 burglaries; 6,723 car thefts; 285 arson incidents; and 32,411 reported instances of larceny theft last year.
The city's latest point-in-time count indicated there were 7,754 homeless people in the city, 3,357 of whom were staying in shelters.
Adam Andrzejewski of Open the Books revealed in December that over 35,500 cases of human waste in public were reported last year.
Amidst the unchecked lawlessness, piling filth, and chronic homelessness, roughly 65,000 people left the city between 2020 and 2022. Including the Bay Area, the region saw an exodus of 249,389 people during that time.
It appears that some of those who remained would like to see a positive change.
The propositions
There were multiple ballot measures put before San Franciscans in the primary vote on March 5, including:
- Proposition B, which would set a new minimum staffing level for the police force every five years and create a 5-10 year police recruitment fund;
- Proposition E, which would limit the amount of time police have to waste on administrative tasks; spare cops from writing up use-of-force events unless a physical injury has occurred or they had to draw their service weapon; permit cops to use body camera footage in lieu of a detailed report; allow for the installation of surveillance or facial ID cameras without police commission approval; and enable police to initiate car chases of suspects thought to have committed select misdemeanor offenses; and
- Proposition F, which would compel individuals suspected of using drugs who are in the County Adult Assistance Program to undergo drug screening; require recipients found using drugs to participate in treatment programs; and cut off non-compliant recipients.
The results
Proposition B, which would have increased the number of full-duty sworn officers from 1,700 to 2,074 in the first five years, was defeated 67.41%-32.59%. San Francisco's Democratic mayor, London Breed, opposed the proposition, calling it a "cop tax," reported KTVU-TV.
Despite considerable opposition by radical leftists, the other two propositions, both supported by the San Francisco Republican Party and Mayor Breed alike, overwhelmingly passed. Proposition E succeeded with 59.9% of the vote. Proposition F won with 63% of the vote.
Mayor Breed said in a statement that Proposition E "will help us build on our work to make San Francisco a safer city for all. We are giving our @SFPD officers more tools to do their jobs and getting them out on the street to take care of our community."
Breed, who is running for re-election, has not always felt so strongly about helping police do their jobs.
Amidst the 2020 BLM riots and in the face of demands to "defund the police," Breed announced she would be slashing $120 million in funding to the San Francisco police and sheriff's departments, and redirecting the funds to race-based initiatives.
Homicides reportedly spiked by 20% that year, compared with 2019, then spiked again by 17% in 2021.
One year after defunding the police, Breed reversed course and put in an emergency request to the city Board of Supervisors for more cash for the SFPD.
This week, Breed also thanked voters for passing Proposition F, claiming, "This is how we get more people the help they need and change what's happening in our City."
While Breed supported the successful propositions, the Democratic Party joined the ACLU of Northern California in denouncing Proposition E.
The ACLU of Northern California suggested the way to improve community safety was not by enabling police to better do their jobs but instead with "affordable housing, mental health care, and substance use treatment."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Real Faith Helped Me Escape My Father’s Dangerous, Cross-Country Cult
For years, I assumed I’d never return to belief in God. My heart remained closed because of the evil I witnessed in God’s name.DC pilot program gives low-income moms $10,800 to get by. One recipient splurged for the high-life: 'I wanted to have fun'
Washington, D.C., has been experimenting with a new way to be charitable with taxpayers' money. Strong Families, Strong Futures is a $1.5 million pilot program that forked over unconditional payments of $10,800 to 132 low-income women who recently had or were expecting children in Wards 5, 7, and 8.
Martha's Table, which facilitated the pilot in partnership with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, indicated at the outset, "We believe that there is no single roadmap to success and that each one of our neighbors should have agency over their own financial decision-making as they know best what their family needs."
One beneficiary of the program may have put the organization's belief to the test.
Canethia Miller, a 27-year-old mother of three, revealed to the Washington Post she burned through most of the money in hopes of getting a brief taste of the high life.
Prior to the pilot program, Miller was living off welfare in a subsidized two-bedroom apartment in the historic Anacostia neighborhood with her newborn child and other two kids, ages 5 and 8.
Despite missing the application deadline for the pilot program, Miller still managed to get on the waiting list. Like the other mothers ultimately enrolled in the program, Miller was asked whether she wanted 12 monthly payments of $900 or a lump sum payment of nearly $11,000. Like 75% of the other recipients, Miller chose the latter.
Miller temporarily put some of the strings-free taxpayer money aside for essential expenses. The remainder, however, did not last long.
"I wanted to blow it," she told the Post. "I wanted to have fun."
Despite admittedly struggling to make her welfare stretch every month to cover groceries for her family, Miller spent $180 of the Strong Families, Strong Future lump sum on her nails and hair, then took her three kids and their father on a $6,000 trip to Miami.
According to the Post, during her luxury vacation, Miller treated her family to a boat tour of "million-dollar homes and luxury yachts" and as well as to a dinner out at a Japanese steak and sushi restaurant.
Following her own "roadmap to success," Miller also bought "new clothes, shoes, gadgets and toys." She boasted that every outfit her kids wore on the trip was new.
"[My kids] got to experience something I would never have been able to do if I didn't have that money," said Miller.
According to the Post, Miller later opened a savings account with the aim of keeping "at least $50 in it" and bought a used car.
"A lot of communities in my area don’t know the financial gain of credit, saving for your kids; that's why we're broke, that's why we don't have nothing to pass down or no house to give down," continued the mother of three. "I'm trying to get to the level where I'm passing something down that really matters, so I can be set and my kids can be set, and they don't need to push so hard like I'm doing now."
Another beneficiary of the taxpayer-funded lump sum indicated she splurged on herself.
Saleemia Quigley, 41, told the Post, "I ain't going to lie. I went shopping, clothes — stuff I didn't need. It was like, 'I paid my rent, so I can go ahead and do this.'"
Other mothers in the program apparently used the pilot money to pay down their debts and upgrade accommodations.
When Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the direct cash transfer program in January 2022, she emphasized the point of Strong Families, Strong Futures was child care — "whether that care involves more diapers, more visits to doctors, more food on the table, shoes, games, books, adventures, all of those things."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Over 59% of illegal alien households rely on taxpayer-funded welfare: Study
The majority of illegal alien- and immigrant-run households are reliant upon taxpayer-funded welfare, according to a new study.
The Center for Immigration Studies scrutinized U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation, finding that non-citizens are far more likely than Americans to make extensive use of means-tested anti-poverty programs.
The study, published Tuesday, found that 54% of households headed by immigrants, including naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens, used one or more major welfare program. By way of comparison, only 39% of U.S.-born households similarly relied on food programs, housing programs, Medicaid, and/or the dole.
Even when free school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children were not factored in, the researchers found that 46% of immigrant households drew welfare versus 33% of U.S.-born households who relied on such support.
An estimated 59.4% of households headed by illegal aliens drew on at least one major taxpayer-funded welfare support. As a cohort, those who stole illegally into the nation reportedly use every program at "statistically significant higher rates than the U.S.-born, except for [Supplemental Security Income], [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families], and housing."
The study indicated that 48% of "illegal-headed households" used food welfare programs; 39% relied on Medicaid; 18% relied on cash welfare; and 4% relied on housing programs.
The CIS researchers suggested that the "ability of immigrant, including illegal immigrants, to receive welfare benefits on behalf of U.S.-born citizen children is a key reason why restrictions on welfare use for new legal immigrants and illegal immigrants are relatively ineffective."
According to the CIS, it is difficult to nail down precisely why immigrant households are more likely than U.S.-born households to collect welfare, given that "83 percent of all immigrant households and 94 percent of illegal-headed households have at least one worker." Children and educational attainment similarly don't appear to be major factors, as childless immigrant households and those with college degrees also tend to use welfare more than their U.S.-born counterparts.
When discussing how best to interpret the data, the researchers noted that "traditionally, one of the most important arguments for immigration is that it benefits the United States — that is, the existing population of Americans. From this perspective, it is certainly reasonable to argue that with the exception of the roughly 6 percent of the total immigrant population who were admitted for humanitarian reasons (e.g. refugees and asylees), immigrant welfare use should be very low."
They further noted that the flood of millions of illegal aliens into the nation since President Joe Biden took office "has profound implications for public coffers," especially since "a large share of those released into the country have been granted parole," meaning they enjoy the same welfare eligibility as new permanent legal immigrants.
The CIS indicated in a previous report that the total foreign-born population, both legal and illegal, increased by 4.5 million since January 2021, reaching over 49.5 million in October 2023. That amounts to a record-high 15% of the U.S. population and exceeds the individual populations of 25 U.S. states. If the welfare statistics hold for this growing population, then illegal immigration will continue to exact an increasingly heavy price from the taxpaying citizenry.
The House Committee on Homeland Security noted in its Nov. 13 interim report on the "Historic Dollar Costs of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' Open-Border Policies" that "for every one million parolees released into the United States on Mayorkas' watch, the cost in federal welfare benefits that will be incurred could total $3 billion annually, with those costs starting to kick in January 2026."
The congressional report echoed a CIS estimate that put the yearly cost of housing known gotaways and illegal aliens who have been released into the U.S. under Biden's watch at $451 billion.
This estimate was based, in part, on a RealClearInvestigations assessment that put the yearly per-person cost imposed on New York City by migrants at $393.70 per day. Multiplied by the over 3.1 million migrants released under Biden as of mid-March, the costs came out to over $1.2 billion a day or $451.05 billion per annum.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Instead Of Fixing Welfare, Biden Admin Targets Crisis Pregnancy Centers
The goals of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program are, in fact, advanced by the services pregnancy resource centers provide.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com