|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS
|
|
Aug. 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
informs that any supplemental State-only funds for pregnant
woman already receiving AFDC during the first 5 months will
be counted as income against eligibility for the AFDC grant
thus substantially nullifying the expected benefit.
Moreover, for pregnant women already receiving AFDC, it
is uncertain whether any State-only payment during the last
4 months would also have to be subtracted from the AFDC
grant. Additionally, the fiscal impact of Senate Bill 926
would be about four times as great as that of House Bill
1596.
On the other hand, House Bill 1596 seeks to provide
State-only funded assistance during the first 5 months of
pregnancy; during the last 4 months of pregnancy, the woman
would be eligible for assistance under AFDC. House Bill
1596 is specifically linked to participation by the pregnant
woman in a pre-natal care program - thus assuring that the
pregnant woman will in fact receive needed pre-natal
nutritional and health care. Benefits flowing under House
Bill 1596 together with Food Stamps and Medicaid would
substantially fill the gap in income assistance (created by
passage of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act) during the first
5 months of pregnancy.
It is my view that, given the uncertainties with
respect to implementation of Senate Bill 926 as well as its
greater fiscal impact, the more reasonable approach to
solving this problem is to sign House Bill 1596. The budget
enacted by the General Assembly for Fiscal Year 1983,
beginning July 1, 1982, does not include funding to
implement either of these bills. In signing House Bill
1596, however, I have directed the Department of Human
Resources to begin extending these benefits effective July
1, 1982 by utilizing existing appropriations where possible.
Implementation of House Bill 1596 effective July 1,
1982 is consistent with this Administration's steadfast
commitment both to alleviate the harshest impacts of the
massive federal cutbacks in funds under the Omnibus
Reconciliation Act and to improve the level of Maryland's
income assistance programs. The General Assembly supported
my proposals for 9% increases in AFDC and General Public
Assistance benefits in the budget just enacted. Over the
past 4 years we have increased AFDC benefits by a total of
30%, including the two largest single year increases in the
State's history.
Moreover the budget also includes several other major
fiscal commitments targeted at low-income families. These
include: raising the AFDC "standard of need" in order to
restore AFDC benefits lost by the working poor; expansion of
day care, child abuse and foster care and adoption programs;
expansion of services to the elderly and to the mentally
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
