Home » News » Politics
Bill would block extra welfare benefits for additional babies
CONCORD — New Hampshire taxpayers should not be paying for bad behavior, according to the prime sponsor of a bill that would cap the financial benefits of welfare recipients who have additional children while receiving state aid.
The prime sponsor of House Bill 1658, Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, told the House Finance Committee Thursday, “I think it is bad public policy for the state to pay for things we do not want to happen. It is good public policy to pay for things we do want to happen.”
But opponents of the bill said the policy would be punitive and would hurt the small number of families affected by the proposal.
MaryLou Beaver, the chair of the Family Assistance Advisory Council, told the committee, “This bill punishes children for the choices their parents make.”
HB 1658 would not increase the financial grant if a woman has a child while on welfare, unless the child is born within the first 10 months of eligibility or in the case of rape or incest.
Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the average increase in benefits a month for the birth of a child is $72.50, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, which estimates the provision would save the state about $34,000 a year.
Jennifer Jones of DHHS said in December there were 5,617 TANF families. Under the program, the maximum assistance per month ranges from $539 for one person to $1,035 for a family of eight.
The bill would not change the Medicaid or food stamp benefits of recipients.
Kurk told the committee his bill is not so much about money as it is about policy. Studies are inconclusive whether the financial cap changes behavior, he said, but what is conclusive is welfare recipients do not have additional children to receive more money.
Beaver told the committee family caps are ineffective at best and misguided at their worst. She and others said reducing the grant for additional children will make it more difficult for the family to survive, and for the children to escape physical, emotional and behavioral problems.
John Tobin, executive director of NH Legal Assistance, said existing law does not encourage mothers on welfare to have additional children because the additional money does not cover the cost of another child.
“We can be sure that taking $72.50 away from a family with a newborn baby will have real human costs, both to the baby born into already-desperate poverty and to the other members of the household who will have fewer resources available to meet their most basic needs of survival,” he said.
The bill was also opposed by the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which is concerned it could increase local welfare costs.
The association’s counsel, Cordell Johnson, said while the amount of money may not be large, it could be significant in a small community with several affected families. “We’re mostly concerned about the money,” he said.
Kurk acknowledged his bill would shift cost, but not necessarily to cities and towns if the recipients go instead to churches, charitable organizations or family and friends for help.
Health and Human Services estimates about six births a month would fall under the provisions of the bill.
Several members of the committee asked if the bill could encourage more abortions or if it amounted to social engineering to reduce the number of children born to the poor and under-educated parents.
Kurk denied his bill was an attempt to promote abortions or social engineering. He said his bill was not intended to save the state money. “If I try to help someone in a charitable venture, I do not expect them to do things that will cost me more money,” he said.
He said 23 states have similar laws.
The committee will continue to work on the bill before making a recommendation.
The prime sponsor of House Bill 1658, Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, told the House Finance Committee Thursday, “I think it is bad public policy for the state to pay for things we do not want to happen. It is good public policy to pay for things we do want to happen.”
But opponents of the bill said the policy would be punitive and would hurt the small number of families affected by the proposal.
MaryLou Beaver, the chair of the Family Assistance Advisory Council, told the committee, “This bill punishes children for the choices their parents make.”
HB 1658 would not increase the financial grant if a woman has a child while on welfare, unless the child is born within the first 10 months of eligibility or in the case of rape or incest.
Under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the average increase in benefits a month for the birth of a child is $72.50, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, which estimates the provision would save the state about $34,000 a year.
Jennifer Jones of DHHS said in December there were 5,617 TANF families. Under the program, the maximum assistance per month ranges from $539 for one person to $1,035 for a family of eight.
The bill would not change the Medicaid or food stamp benefits of recipients.
Kurk told the committee his bill is not so much about money as it is about policy. Studies are inconclusive whether the financial cap changes behavior, he said, but what is conclusive is welfare recipients do not have additional children to receive more money.
Beaver told the committee family caps are ineffective at best and misguided at their worst. She and others said reducing the grant for additional children will make it more difficult for the family to survive, and for the children to escape physical, emotional and behavioral problems.
John Tobin, executive director of NH Legal Assistance, said existing law does not encourage mothers on welfare to have additional children because the additional money does not cover the cost of another child.
“We can be sure that taking $72.50 away from a family with a newborn baby will have real human costs, both to the baby born into already-desperate poverty and to the other members of the household who will have fewer resources available to meet their most basic needs of survival,” he said.
The bill was also opposed by the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which is concerned it could increase local welfare costs.
The association’s counsel, Cordell Johnson, said while the amount of money may not be large, it could be significant in a small community with several affected families. “We’re mostly concerned about the money,” he said.
Kurk acknowledged his bill would shift cost, but not necessarily to cities and towns if the recipients go instead to churches, charitable organizations or family and friends for help.
Health and Human Services estimates about six births a month would fall under the provisions of the bill.
Several members of the committee asked if the bill could encourage more abortions or if it amounted to social engineering to reduce the number of children born to the poor and under-educated parents.
Kurk denied his bill was an attempt to promote abortions or social engineering. He said his bill was not intended to save the state money. “If I try to help someone in a charitable venture, I do not expect them to do things that will cost me more money,” he said.
He said 23 states have similar laws.
The committee will continue to work on the bill before making a recommendation.