Legislation authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, to alter residency requirements for certain medical assistance programs passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee recently. It was included in the Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2012-13 omnibus budget bill discussions that were conducted Wednesday.
The bill, Senate File 150, increases the time required to establish residency in Minnesota from 30 to 60 days for purposes of determining eligibility for the Minnesota Family Investment and General Assistance programs.
“This is about preventing people from moving to our rural communities from out of state simply to get our welfare benefits,” Gazelka said in a news release. “Changing residency requirements from 30 to 60 days is a modest, reasonable adjustment. We initially looked for a longer waiting period but in the past the Supreme Court has ruled several attempts at longer than 60 days to be unconstitutional.”
The legislation could be implemented as early as September 2011. After initial programming costs, projected savings associated with the modifications are: GA: $171,000 in FY 2012, $228,000 per year ongoing; MFIP: $435,000 in FY 2012, $575,000 per year ongoing.
The legislation contains special exemptions to the 60-day residency requirement that involves applicants who once lived in Minnesota and returned after serving in the armed forces, attending school in another state or returning to the residence of a caregiver.



Comments (11)
Add commentMore good news!
More good news!
I find it a bit disturbing
to state that I actually agree with Gazelka on this one. Everyone is (or should be) all for removing waste and scammers from the system. This seems like a common sense idea; unfortunately, Gazelka is usually quite far removed from anything common sense-wise. Hopefully he can keep it up!
Kudos to Senator Gazelka!
This is a GREAT bill. I agree with the time limits as well, but as it stated in the article, they couldn't even make the waiting time longer than 2 months because the courts would rule it unconstitutional. Rumor has it, the time limit would be considered unconstitutional as well. Maybe it's not the Republicans who are bad people, maybe it's time the courts took some share of responsibility for their liberal leaning rulings.
Rumor also has it, Rep Ward was presented with this bill and turned it down because of his liberal viewpoints. He'd apparently rather spend more of your money giving it to people who don't move to this area for a job, but to live off of our generous welfare benefits.
That is what is TRULY disturbing.
Analytical Perspective
Your writing and past comments suggest that you are a paid writer for the GOP. If so do they pay you by the piece or is it salary?
I was going to ask you the
I was going to ask you the same thing, Fish. But then again, I know they wouldn't pay you.
Not when they could get something (anything) for free.
Then they wouldn't have to pay their "fair share" of taxes...and neither would you.
Barnet, No. Everyone knows
Barnet,
No. Everyone knows he's an over the top liberal. I was suggesting that the DFL was paying him.
He's probably taking a charitable work contribution on his taxes, while they write off business deduction also.
Only the taxpayer pay. Good deal, eh?