Jesse Ventura on Welfare & Poverty
Transition from Welfare to Self-Sufficiency
Everyone gets down on his or her luck at one time or another. Minnesota is committed to helping those who are really down, particularly families with children. But that help should be temporary, should not substitute for the parents’ own responsibility
to support and care for their children, and, above all, should encourage people to become as self-sufficient as possible. Minnesota’s welfare reform has been successful in helping many people find and keep jobs. Many of these jobs, however, are either
less than full- time or pay low wages that require continuing dependence on public support. Our commitment to self-sufficiency [should] identify strategies to help low-income families become truly independent through their own efforts, but with
appropriate public support. Our success in moving people toward self-sufficiency depends not just on living support, job training and education, but also on stable and affordable housing, safe child care, accessible health care, and transportation.
Source: The Big Plan: Self-Sufficient People
Dec 10, 2000
Social programs should be a safety net, not a hammock
Any time government has money to give away, it’s because it was taken from somebody else. That’s why I’m fundamentally opposed to government programs that simply hand out cash to anybody who whines loudly enough.
The danger is that these kinds of programs invariably grow bigger and more costly without addressing the root of the problem: the reason that people are in need of a handout in the first place.
Dependence on the government tends to encourage more dependence on the government.Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for a government-funded social safety net.
What kind of nation would we be if we weren’t able to help people when they were genuinely in need? But we’ve got to make sure our government programs remain safety nets and not hammocks.
Source: Do I Stand Alone, by Jesse Ventura, p. 52-53
Jul 2, 2000
Focus welfare on jobs & training
We need to focus our welfare energies on tackling the real causes of joblessness. You’ve heard it said that our blue-collar job base is shrinking; that the number of manufacturing jobs is dropping because of automation. If this is so, then we’d better
acknowledge it and act on that knowledge. It makes more sense to retrain people for the existing job market than to try to manipulate the economy artificially. Successful people are flexible. Government’s role is not to temper the economy to the
types of jobs people want, but to make sure that people have ample opportunity to get the jobs that exist.
The vast majority of people applying for welfare are willing to work. For most, the problem is they don’t have the skills. About 50% don’t have a
high school degree. Some have mental health problems. Many don’t have the best social skills. If the problem is that people aren’t employable enough, we need to work on helping them become employable.
Source: Do I Stand Alone, by Jesse Ventura, p.131-32
Jul 2, 2000
Believes in private charity, not government charity
The government is not a charity institution. Constitutionally, there’s nothing supporting the idea that people have the right to expect charity from the government. I believe in charity. But I also believe that government programs funded by tax money
are about the worst possible way to help out people in need. Private charities are much better, because people can get involved in the ones that are most meaningful to them. I get very disturbed when I see people demonstrating with signs that
say “Welfare Rights.” There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to welfare! Do you know what welfare is? It’s taking money from someone who is working to give to someone who’s not!
Maybe we should set up welfare so that it makes
up the gap between what someone needs to live on and what they’re able to earn, [in exchange for government-supplied jobs]. For example, I think we need to have monitors on school buses. I believe everyone should have a job to do, no matter how modest.
Source: Ain’t Got Time To Bleed, p. 43-6
Jan 1, 1999
Support LIHEAP, low-income heating assistance.
signed the Midwestern Governors' Conference resolution:
- WHEREAS, The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) enables states to assist low-income households in meeting critical heating and cooling needs; and
- WHEREAS, More than two-thirds of households eligible for LIHEAP have annual incomes under $8,000, making LIHEAP a targeted, cost-effective way to help low-income citizens pay their home energy bills; and
- WHEREAS, Households served because of LIHEAP include the most vulnerable populations in our states ? the elderly, disabled, and young children; and
- WHEREAS, LIHEAP provides a foundation upon which the Midwestern states have built community-based energy assistance programs and has permitted us to leverage state and local dollars to meet the needs of our citizens; and
- WHEREAS, In past years, funding for LIHEAP has been substantially reduced, and any new funding cuts will impede the states’ ability to meet the energy needs of low-income households; now therefore be it
- RESOLVED, That the Midwestern Governors’ Conference encourages Congress to renew its support for LIHEAP and maintain funding in Fiscal Year 2001 at or above the level appropriated for the program in Fiscal Year 2000.
Source: Resolution of Midwestern Governors' Conf. on LIHEAP 00-MGC2 on May 25, 2000
Maintain federal Social Services Block Grant funding.
adopted the National Governors Association position paper:
The Issue
Despite an ongoing need to provide social services to families, the elderly, and the disabled, federal funding for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) has been cut dramatically over the past few years, indicating a weakening of the historic state-federal partnership to serve needy Americans. In 1996, as part of the historic welfare reform agreement, Congress agreed to provide the states $2.38 billion each year for SSBG. Since that time, funding has been chipped away little by little. This year, SSBG is funded at $1.725 billion. NGA’s Position
The nation’s Governors have consistently supported the broad flexibility of the SSBG and are adamantly opposed to cuts in federal funding for the program. Governors believe that funding for SSBG is among the most valuable federal investment that can be made for the nation’s most vulnerable population.
Further cuts will be difficult for state and local governments to absorb and will cause a disruption in the delivery of the most critical human services. Governors believe that funding for SSBG should be restored to $2.38 billion, and transferability should be permanently restored to 10 percent, the levels that were agreed to as part of the 1996 welfare reform law. In 1996, Governors reluctantly agreed to a slight reduction in funding for SSBG, from $2.8 billion to $2.38 billion, with the understanding that funding would remain at $2.38 billion through fiscal 2002, and then return to $2.8 billion. However, the federal government has consistently broken that promise. The nation’s Governors strongly urge Congress and the administration to reject the proposed cuts and to restore funding and flexibility to the program.
Source: National Governors Association "Issues / Positions" 01-NGA14 on Sep 7, 2001
Maintain flexibility & funding levels for TANF block grants.
adopted the National Governors Association position paper:
The Issue
The 1996 welfare reform law, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, needs to be reauthorized before September 30, 2002. NGA’s Position
In 1996, the Governors, Congress, and the administration entered into a historic welfare reform agreement. In exchange for assuming the risk involved with accepting the primary responsibility for transforming the welfare system from one of dependency to self-sufficiency, Governors agreed to guaranteed funding for the life of the TANF block grant along with significant flexibility to administer federal programs. The current NGA policy on welfare reform makes three key points:- Maintain flexibility. The TANF block grant was created so that states could develop innovative approaches to addressing welfare reform, and states have been successful in tailoring their programs to meet the individual needs of their citizens. This flexibility must be maintained so that states can
continue the progress of welfare reform.
- Maintain investment. States are provided with $16.5 billion each year in federal TANF funds, which together with the required state maintenance-of-effort funds, finance welfare reform. Some will argue that the funding should be cut because of the dramatic drop in caseloads. But TANF is no longer just about cash assistance - states are now serving a much broader population than under the old welfare system, and states are now providing services to families that help them succeed and advance in the workplace, not just cutting a check for cash each month.
- Move toward greater program alignment. The Food Stamp Program is one example of a program that is in great need of reform, and its connection to welfare reform should be discussed in the context of reauthorization. Other related programs that should be considered include child support, child welfare, housing, the Workforce Investment Act and Medicaid.
Source: National Governors Association "Issues / Positions" 01-NGA17 on Sep 21, 2001