Sam Brownback on Welfare & Poverty Republican Sr Senator (KS)

Supported welfare reform in House; but some pork in Senate

To his credit, Sen. Brownback has supported numerous bills restricting the federal government’s looseness with the purse strings, including a vote for welfare reform in the House (Roll Call #383, 07/31/96) and a vote against increasing federal funding for Amtrak (Roll Call #52, 03/15/06)

Even so, Sen. Brownback has voted for several key increases in federal spending. American taxpayers would be better served if Sen. Brownback’s unwavering commitment to cutting taxes was applied as consistently to reining in government spending.

Two-year limit on welfare benefits

Indicate which principles you support regarding the US welfare system.
• Strengthen child support collection procedures and increase penalties for parents who do not pay child support.
• Impose a two-year limit on welfare benefits for recipients who are able to work.
• Require that unwed teenage mothers live with a parent or guardian and attend school to receive benefits.
• Limit the benefits given to single women if they have additional children while receiving welfare benefits.

Fund welfare via block grants to states

A: Slightly Decrease.

Q: Do you support the use of block grants given to states, rather than federal spending, in Welfare?

A: Yes.

Q: Which level of government should have primary responsibility for welfare services?

A: State.

Voted NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention.

Adds to National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) purposes:
1. providing year-round opportunities in service-learning;
2. involving program participants in emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery;
3. increasing service opportunities for retiring professionals;
4. encouraging service by individuals age 55 or older and continued service by national service alumni;
5. focusing national service on the areas of national need.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.

We created national service to let young people find opportunity to be of service and also to make an important contribution. But not all was rosy. In 2003, when I was the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee funding national service, they created a debacle. One of their most colossal errors was that they enrolled over 20,000 volunteers and could not afford to pay for it. That is how sloppy they were in their accounting. I called them the "Enron of nonprofits."

And they worked on it. But all that is history. We are going to expand AmeriCorps activity into specialized corps. One, an education corps; another, a health futures corps; another, a veterans corps; and another called opportunity corps. These are not outside of AmeriCorps. They will be subsets because we find this is where compelling human need is and at the same time offers great opportunity for volunteers to do it.

Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.