Skip to main content

Hawley sponsors bill to add residency requirement for public aid

By Billie Owens

Assemblyman Steve Hawley has announced that he is sponsoring legislation which would limit public assistance benefits to "true New York residents."

If passed, the bill would implement a 90-day residency requirement for social services applicants.

“One of Albany’s worst-kept secrets is the fact that people come to New York from all over the country to take advantage of our wire-thin requirements for public assistance,” Hawley said in a news release.

“This legislation seeks to limit these benefits to people who actually live, work and raise a family in New York state, rather than people in search of a cash grab for New York’s all-too-easily obtainable buck.”

Current New York laws hold no requirement regarding length of residency for benefit recipients. Applicants must only reside in New York and show intent to remain in the state for the foreseeable future, which is proven through documents such as a land lease or a driver’s license.

“This bill is about protecting the limited resources we have to serve true New Yorkers that depend on these funds,” Hawley said. “New York can barely sustain the level of assistance we are committed to within our own state borders. It is vital that we make sure every dollar spent is done so judiciously and effectively.”

Gary Spencer

I have heard this argument before, it would be interesting to see how many people actually come from other states to take advantange of NY's "wire-thin requirements for public assistance". I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I am wondering, however, just how big the problem is. I think this is a good idea and support it 100%, but there are also many other ways to cut the states budget.

Mar 15, 2011, 5:12pm Permalink
Sean Valdes

I appreciate the focus on reforming our public assistance programs, but this is like putting a band-aid on a cancerous cyst and saying it's healed. We need real reform that works towards ending the public assistance addiction that we have in this state. So far all I've seen from anyone in Albany (and anyone whose wanted to go to Albany) is the same old nit-picking stuff that never really addresses the problem.

Mar 15, 2011, 8:03pm Permalink
Bea McManis

Sean, what is your solution?
Real solutions.
You hear a lot about ending public assistance, so exactly how is that done? Pass a bill and anyone receiving assistance will now be off the rolls?

Mar 15, 2011, 8:23pm Permalink
Reicha Morris

i can think of a few scenarios where this could cause problems...if i have a family out of state and my parents pass on, leaving an adult relative (such as a sibling)who has a disability (such as developmental) does that mean if they move closer to their legal guardian relative in NY state they would have to wait 90 days for services? what if my relative is severely disabled. There are people out there who cannot work or raise a family because of issues other than choice. Why do we constantly choose this sort of route as an answer to our fiscal issues? If you have no money how can you afford to move to New York in the first place...where are the figures or statistics that estimate the annual cost of this specific issue? Everytime a politican says "hard working people who pay taxes are getting ripped off by people using the welfare system" everyone jumps the gun WHERE ARE THE STATISTICS

Mar 15, 2011, 8:34pm Permalink
Mark Janofsky

It's about time! I see it every time I advertise an apartment. They come here from other states when their benefits run out. The waiting period should be more like 6 to 12 months.

Mar 15, 2011, 9:02pm Permalink
Sean Valdes

Bea,
My ideal solution and a practical solution are not the same. My ideal solution comes from my uber-conservative side - end all public assistance as of 3 minutes ago. BUT, I'm not that naive either. I think we need to wean society off of public assistance. I had an economics professor in one of my undergraduate economics classes that turned me on to reverse welfare. After some research, it seems to really have merit, but it would require a complete overhaul of the entire system.

Basically, say someone on Public Assistance (PA) receives $27K a year in total benefits. That same person then gets a full time job making $25K a year ($480/week). The PA that person receives, under the current conditions, drops down to almost non-existent levels, creating a disincentive to work. Instead, the system should cut a small portion of their PA, in effect causing them to have a net gain from the transaction. With each increase in pay the person earns, the PA dollars they receive is cut by less than the increased earnings. Obviously definitive levels need to be established for each income/PA level and a cut off point needs to be put into place.

In my opinion, this plan would encourage people to work while creating additional tax revenue from their paychecks. Less money going out and more money coming means we're at least heading in the right direction. And Bea, chances are we wouldn't see a complete fix to the problem in your lifetime (not an age joke, just the truth.) I would think that we would start to see the light at the end of the tunnel towards the end of my lifetime though.

It's a little sad that society needs to think of these kinds of tactics to fix itself. I still believe that PA is something that government should not be involved in. But, we have this problem, so we have to fix it logically and in a controlled, methodical fashion.

Mar 15, 2011, 9:22pm Permalink
Don Antinore

I admire the thinking of Steve Hawley!

From here on, I know the bleeding hearts, the ACLU commies, the tree huggers, etc. will not like nor agree what I have to say....but I say it with the knowledge that the majority of the citizens of this over taxed State agree with every word, and maybe more.

We have for far to many years been giving away money to mostly lazy parasites. It's time that we put our foot down hard and make receiving welfare so difficult it would be easier for the no count recipients to get a job. Ninty days if far too short waiting period...........how about a year or more? How about if the "State and the Departmnt of "social services" insist on drug testing, every month before a check is issued? How about if the grocery cards issued could only be used for food....I know toilet paper is not included in the purchase agreement.....by food, I mean the stuff one has to cook from scratch...not prepared, microwavable junk? That might discourage the constant flow of welfare dependent people from entering NYS! We all know there have been generation after generation of recipients of the working public's money, and if they want a raise, they simply make more babies! That's free and fun! That's BS in my never-to-be-humble opinion. If the congress is wide awake, they should, with out hesitation vote to pass this proposed legislation and "flush" the takers away!!!

Mar 15, 2011, 10:50pm Permalink
Ken Mistler

Well spoken Don...I remember in NYC seeing individuals having to wait in line for a block of cheese, a dozen eggs, A pound of ham.. Now its an EBT card, so one can choose..Heres A thought.. replace migrant workers with welfare dependent people.

Mar 15, 2011, 11:25pm Permalink
doug smith

heres a thought ......require all non indians to present a id card to buy smokes from idians.......every 3 months card holder pays there FAIR SHARE of federial and state tax's......then use this money to help out with smoking related illnesses....that welfare smokers are being treated for ........that we tax payers are paying for....they are cheating 3 times......cheating on fed taxes....state taxes and most of all .....cheating there familys a posible loving long life

Mar 16, 2011, 9:10am Permalink
Brandon Burger

Sorry, Tim. I must have read it wrong. I was too busy hugging a tree while centrally planning the fight for the civil liberties of lazy parasites.

Mar 18, 2011, 12:37am Permalink

Authentically Local