Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
California
Related: About this forumBehind The Movement To Repeal California's Worst Law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/behind-the-movement-to-repeal-californias-worst-law_55d22acbe4b055a6dab10187Vivian Thorp was 28 years old when she ripped a ligament in her knee lifting heavy freight at Walmart in Vallejo, California. Until then, shed liked her job and was good at it. I was always strong and agile, and I had the skills for a physical job, she says. I helped set up that store. But when the injury laid her up, she found herself adrift in the job market. I wasnt skilled for anything else other than waitressing or shipping and receiving, she says. I got really deeply depressed.
Her life began to unravel. A bank repossessed the rental she was living in. The father of her baby daughter Jasmine, born in 1994, left Thorp and returned to England. In 1997, four years after the accident, Walmart finally paid her $20,000 for medical expenses and lost income, but more than half of it went to pay back workers compensation. In debt, homeless and with a small child to support, in 1999 Thorp sought the help of Californias welfare program, CalWORKs.
She didnt stay on welfare long; after only about a year she found a job as an office manager with a security company. But she was pregnant with her second child, conceived in a relationship with a homeless man who struggled with alcoholism and mental illness. It wasnt a planned pregnancy, she says, but it was a blessing. Within six months, however, the owner of the security firm died, and all his employees lost their jobs. One month before she gave birth, Thorp went back on welfare: $520 a month for herself and Jasmine.
Thorp had assumed that when her second daughter, Janina, was born, her monthly cash aid payments would rise by another $122 to cover the child. This small sum might have qualified her for subsidized housing even Section 8 OK apartments have income requirements. It also would have paid for diapers and a few extra groceries when food stamps ran out. She was devastatingly shocked, then, to learn of Californias Maximum Family Grant rule, which states that women who have babies while already on welfare may not be entitled to an increase in benefits.
Her life began to unravel. A bank repossessed the rental she was living in. The father of her baby daughter Jasmine, born in 1994, left Thorp and returned to England. In 1997, four years after the accident, Walmart finally paid her $20,000 for medical expenses and lost income, but more than half of it went to pay back workers compensation. In debt, homeless and with a small child to support, in 1999 Thorp sought the help of Californias welfare program, CalWORKs.
She didnt stay on welfare long; after only about a year she found a job as an office manager with a security company. But she was pregnant with her second child, conceived in a relationship with a homeless man who struggled with alcoholism and mental illness. It wasnt a planned pregnancy, she says, but it was a blessing. Within six months, however, the owner of the security firm died, and all his employees lost their jobs. One month before she gave birth, Thorp went back on welfare: $520 a month for herself and Jasmine.
Thorp had assumed that when her second daughter, Janina, was born, her monthly cash aid payments would rise by another $122 to cover the child. This small sum might have qualified her for subsidized housing even Section 8 OK apartments have income requirements. It also would have paid for diapers and a few extra groceries when food stamps ran out. She was devastatingly shocked, then, to learn of Californias Maximum Family Grant rule, which states that women who have babies while already on welfare may not be entitled to an increase in benefits.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1061 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Behind The Movement To Repeal California's Worst Law (Original Post)
KamaAina
Aug 2015
OP
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)1. I remember when California was liberal
The last few months I have found various stories coming out of the state completely shocking.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)3. I remember when Jerry Brown was liberal
Most of his second go-round has been shocking.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)2. This is the sort of thing that gives the GOP leverage
when they say there is a *Democrat* conspiracy against women having children. Then they dogwhistle that women on welfare are black, re: black population control.