Welfare applicants asked to leave crowded welfare office
4:53 PM Mon, Jun 01, 2009 | Permalink
Email
 |
 |
Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« R.I. secretary of state won't appeal ballot-access ruling |
Main
| National Grid plan would hike home electric bill 11 percent »
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Worried about a potential fire and safety hazard, the police Monday asked a large group of welfare recipients at the state's Elmwood Avenue office to come back 30 minutes later. More than 100 Rhode Islanders jammed the building seeking assistance, said workers. "The Capital Police asked people if they could come back later because of fire safety and capacity concerns," said Amy Kempe, Governor Carcieri's spokeswoman. Kemp said the state has seen a slight increase in the number of welfare applications. But welfare workers typically see more people at the first of each month, in part because recipients often submit papers in response to state notices, she said. Anti-poverty advocate Henry Shelton, who heads the George Wiley Center, called the large gathering another sign that the state's economy is faltering. The welfare office in Pawtucket was also jammed, said Shelton, who has asked the state to hire more food-stamp workers. "If it's so crowded that you have to tell people to come back later, then it's time to hire more people," he said. 
CommentsLeave a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
Tags 
New comments
New photos
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
Can someone please tell Henry Shelton that the state's economy is faltering because of the expense of running social programs like welfare, food stamps, child care assistrance, heating assistance, etc. If we had welfare reform and reduced spending on social programs, then taxes could be lowered which would entice businesses to come here and create jobs. The solution is not spending more on welfare.
Report Abuse
JD,
And what would you suggest for all the impovereshed? SHould we just let them starve and live in substandard houseing? MAybe if the CEO's were not so greedy and actually paid line workers enough to survive without Welfare or other social programs the government would not have tio take on as much of this responsibility. And, don't say they donate to socail services because statistically the people who donate the most to charity are the poor.
Report Abuse
JD. You are misinformed. Food stamps are federally funded not locally so it has nothing to do with the state economy.
Report Abuse
Deb,
"The top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns."
JD is right...
Report Abuse
Matt/JD,
Sorry guys, but what you are not considering is the fact that the top earning taxpayers are paying taxes based on the amount that they earned, not where they fall in the % of earners. Besides, top earners often create shell companies, family trusts and "charitable organizations" that only benefit their own advancement and tax relief...
You are comparing apples to oranges...
It sounds as though you feel that the top earners are "paying more than their fair share".
Consider the fact that if a person makes $364,657, he may well fall into the top 1% of earners, but his/her income is not remotely comparable to that of Mr Bill Gates, whose 2008 personal salary is approximately $1,000,000.00 per year, but has an overall net worth of approximately $58 BILLION dollars.
You have to consider the inequitable division of wealth among even the top 1% of total income earners before you can begin to calculate values.
Conside this: "A middle-class family donates $1 to charity, they get 15 cents off their income tax. Bill Gates donates $1 to charity, he takes 35 cents off his income tax."
Robert Gibbs on Thursday, March 5th, 2009 in a White House briefing
Does that seem "fair" when considering the value of the $1 donated to charity? Why is Bill G's $1 worth more than a another man's $1 in relation to the taxes being paid for his charitable contribution?
I suppose that "fair" is a relative term... being born poor is typically still a life sentence... very few people ever escape the income tax bracket of their parents....
Report Abuse