If, on the other hand, you reside in Oregon and fail to conform to the full requirements of welfare bureaucracy, your odds of being set adrift are only one out of a hundred. These statistics, taken from a recent article in the "New York Times," illustrate the absurdity and unfairness of mosaic state laws on issues fundamental to human survival with dignity.
Since federal passage of welfare reform in 1996, each state has been allowed to determine to what degree and severity it can pare its welfare rolls through "punishment" for infractions ranging from missing an appointment to failing to provide "complete information." In California, Iowa, and Illinois, nearly half of those no longer receiving benefits were guilty of such behavior. Conversely, only about one in ten in Nebraska and Maryland are similarly punished and in other states, namely Minnesota, Maine and North Dakota, a mere reduction in benefits is the bureaucratically adjudicated punishment.
Certain fundamentals of a civilized society perforce should be guaranteed, though not necessarily directly delivered, by the federal government: those essentials of decency including education, housing, nutrition, and health care. When individual states are allowed to legislate willy-nilly on these matters - at times reflecting pockets of ignorance and meanness - we do an injustice to the body politic. Being permitted to turn right on red in one state and not in another might be quirky, but hardly a violation of basic equal rights. Depriving a mother and her children of social guarantees in Austin but not in Portland, however, is nothing less than geographic & legislative arbitrariness and a violation of what should be equality under the law.
For years after its passage the demands of the 14th Amendment were applied from state to state at will, a legislative and judicial miscarriage now mostly forgotten. Today it is not easy to conjure up a United States in which "due process" applies as you're traveling through Maryland, but not California. In that notional country, traversing it safely would require careful map plotting along with a reading of appropriate state statutes.
Such an infringement would not be tolerated by an America disdainful and intolerant of state interference in equal application of the law. Why should a similar infringement be permitted on the less fortunate among us?
Go To Page: 1
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Phil Carpenter's U.S. Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.