H.B. 482

VETOES

would be eligible to receive medical assistance and food stamps. The family cap would
have applied to every welfare recipient in the State.

I included the family cap in my welfare reform proposal because I was convinced that the
measure was necessary to encourage families to make the difficult transition from welfare
to work. The family cap would encourage AFDC recipients to take responsibility for their
families and make healthy choices that would enhance their ability to enter the job
market and achieve self-sufficiency. While recipients would still have the complete
freedom of choice, the family cap would send a clear message that recipients would not
receive additional State support for unhealthy choices that lead to greater dependency.

Secondly, I believe that meaningful welfare reform must put welfare recipients and the
working poor on a level playing field by reducing incentives to stay on welfare. The family
cap would establish an environment similar to the world of work, where families do not
get pay raises when they have additional children. Again, this would encourage
responsibility for family planning.

Finally, the family cap would have allowed the welfare reform pilot program to achieve
the revenue neutrality required for federal waivers. The savings from the family cap was
to help offset costs incurred by repealing the 100 hour work rule, liberalizing asset and
income rules, and providing family health classes and welfare avoidance grants. Revenue
neutrality is critical because State taxpayers must pay 100% of any additional expenses for
welfare reform.

The family cap was not only a priority for my Administration, it was a priority for the
citizens of Maryland. It enjoyed widespread popular support from diverse groups such as
the General Assembly's Republican Caucus and the Maryland Chapter of the NAACP.
More importantly, it enjoyed overwhelming support from average citizens who are
frustrated with our expensive welfare system that rewards irresponsible behavior and
promotes welfare as a way of life.

As introduced, House Bill 482 was a carefully balanced proposal. It combined additional
benefits, to reward positive behavior and encourage two-parent families, with sanctions,
to discourage noncompliance and unhealthy lifestyle choices. The Legislature did two
things that destroyed this balance: First, it increased benefits by adding provisions that (1)
required family planning counseling and services, (2) disregarded the income of a
step-parent when determining eligibility for benefits, and (3) extended medicaid benefits
for an additional year after a recipient is off welfare. Second, the Legislature reduced
sanctions by eliminating the statewide family cap. In essence, House Bill 482 is no longer
balanced; it contains too many carrots and too few sticks. It sends the wrong message to
welfare recipients—that the State will increase benefits and services and at the same
time, continue to reward irresponsible behavior.

Besides being programmatically unbalanced, the Legislative enhancements and
elimination of the family cap have made welfare reform prohibitively expensive. The pilot
program could cost an additional $9.3 million over a three year period. I believe these
costs make the pilot program too expensive to duplicate statewide. Furthermore, it is
unfair to ask the taxpayers to finance a program that will not achieve meaningful welfare
reform.

- 3866 -