welfare

California welfare recipients using state-issued debit cards withdrew more than $1.8 million in taxpayer cash on casino floors between October 2009 and last month, state officials said Thursday.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order requiring welfare recipients to promise they will use cash benefits only to “meet the basic subsistence needs” of their families. The order also gave the state Department of Social Services seven days to produce a plan to reduce other types of “waste, fraud and abuse” in the welfare program.

The moves came after The Times reported Wednesday that officials at the department failed to notice for years that welfare recipients could use the state-issued cards to withdraw taxpayer cash at more than half of the tribal casinos and state-licensed poker rooms in California. The state initiated the debit card program in 2002.

Casino withdrawals, which represented far less than 1% of total welfare spending during the eight months for which the department released data, averaged just over $227,392 a month.

Schwarzenegger has already ordered the vendor that runs the state welfare system’s ATM network to prohibit the cards from working at casino machines. Republican lawmakers are now calling on the administration to track down the people who withdrew cash at gaming centers and recover the money.

“I’d say that $227,000 per month is an astounding waste of taxpayer dollars,” said Seth Unger, spokesman for Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick of Solana Beach. “To me it is absolutely clear that the department failed in its duty to provide oversight. We should explore all options to get the money back.”

The electronic benefit transfer cards allow welfare recipients to access two accounts: cash offered through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and an electronic version of food stamps, which comes with strict rules governing how the money can be spent.

The cash benefits, however, can be withdrawn and spent just about anywhere. A Times review of state records found that the cards work at ATMs in 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms.

Most of the ATMs impose a withdrawal limit of about $300 a day. The monthly cash grant for a family of three ranges up to $694, while families with more than 10 people can get as much as $1,469, documents from the Social Services Department show.

Some Assembly Republicans called Thursday for assurances that welfare recipients can’t access ATMs at other “seedy” businesses. “If they’re going to shut down … the casinos, why not also shut down the ATMs at liquor stores and bars?” Unger asked.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the point of the executive order was to force the department to examine the program for all manner of abuse, but did not specify any other kinds of businesses that might be weeded out of the network. “We’re going to eliminate any waste, fraud and abuse that makes sense to eliminate,” he said.

Democrats, who have been fighting to preserve the state’s fraying social safety net in the face of a $19-billion budget gap, angrily rejected a Schwarzenegger proposal last month to eliminate the cash portion of welfare.

That was before anyone in Sacramento realized the money could be withdrawn by someone strolling from a poker game to a blackjack table.

Democratic leaders steered away from specifics while discussing calls for reform.

“We will conduct timely legislative oversight,” said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento). “We want to make sure all families are spending the money on the children it’s intended to serve.”

[email protected]

 Tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration on Southeast Asian nations—effective August 7, 2025—are likely to have a significant impact on the economies of the region. The second-quarter growth figures of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam would have brought some relief for all these countries. For long, ASEAN countries have benefited immensely from globalization and reasonable global geopolitical stability—especially stable ties between China and the US—and in recent years even from the China+1 policy of several companies—especially western ones—which sought to reduce their dependence upon China.

In the current economic and geopolitical situation, however, the ASEAN region faces multiple challenges due to the global turbulence, and countries in the region are devising tools to deal with the economic uncertainty.

Apart from diversifying economic relations, countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam are all focusing heavily on domestic spending. While Vietnam is focusing on infrastructure, Indonesia, under the leadership of Prabowo Subianto, is focusing heavily on welfare schemes, which include an ambitious free nutritious meal program, setting up of rural cooperatives, free health check-ups, and the construction of three million homes. During his first state of the nation address, the Indonesian president said:

‘Our goal of independence is to be free from poverty, free from hunger, and free from suffering.’

For 2026, Indonesia is likely to raise public spending to $233.92 billion. The free meal program will receive $20.7 billion. Prabowo’s ambitious plan to develop 80,000 rural cooperatives is also likely to incur massive public expenditures.

Focus on welfare and the impact of infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

In the case of Indonesia, the spending on welfare schemes has also resulted in lesser allocation towards Nusantara—the new administrative capital proposed by Prabowo’s predecessor, Joko Widodo, referred to as Jokowi. The reason for setting up a new capital was infrastructural and logistical problems in the current Indonesian capital—Jakarta. Nusantara, located in the East Kalimantan region of Indonesia, was chosen due to its geographical location and the fact that it may help in addressing disparities between the eastern and western parts of the country. While Jokowi had committed over $5 billion for the development of Nusantara, between 2022 and 2024, his successor has committed a little more than half the amount for the period between 2025 and 2029.

Unlike Jokowi, who focused heavily on the infrastructure sector, Prabowo Subianto is focused more on welfare. This is a major departure in terms of economic policy. Lesser focus on Nusantara could have several implications. First, according to many observers, it could send the wrong message to investors. Second, it may have domestic political ramifications. The Nusantara project was a brainchild of Jokowi, and it remains to be seen how the former president views the slowing down of the project.

In conclusion, ASEAN countries are being forced to explore new economic approaches and focus more on spending. As mentioned earlier, some ASEAN countries like Vietnam are focusing heavily on infrastructure, while Indonesia is expanding welfare programs. While focusing on the same is important, it remains to be seen what approach the current dispensation adopts vis-à-vis the Nusantara project, which is very important in terms of messaging to investors. It also remains to be seen whether the slowing down of the project will have any impact on Indonesia’s domestic politics.

Spending decisions have been made “harder” by the government’s U-turn on welfare changes, the education secretary has said, as she did not commit to scrapping the two-child benefit cap.

Bridget Phillipson told BBC One’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme that ministers were “looking at every lever” to lift children out of poverty.

But she said removing the cap would “come at a cost” and insisted the government was supporting families with the cost of living in other ways.

It comes after a rebellion of Labour MPs forced the government to significantly water down a package of welfare reforms that would have saved £5bn a year by 2030.

The climbdown means the savings will now be delayed or lost entirely, which puts pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves ahead of the autumn Budget.

Before its retreat on benefits, the Labour government was considering lifting the two-child benefit cap, a policy that restricts means-tested benefits to a maximum of two children per family for those born after April 2017.

When asked if the chances of getting rid of the cap had diminished, Phillipson said: “The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make decisions, future decisions harder.

“But all of that said, we will look at this collectively in terms of all of the ways that we can lift children out of poverty.”

Despite massive majority, Starmer could not get party fully behind signature legislation to pare down spending.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has won a key vote in Parliament on a signature plan to overhaul the country’s welfare system.

But the 335 to 260 House of Commons victory on Tuesday largely rang hollow, with Starmer forced to soften his promised cuts amid pushback from members of his own Labour Party, in what could represent a crisis for his leadership.

“Welfare reform, let’s be honest, is never easy, perhaps especially for Labour governments,” work and pensions minister Liz Kendall told Parliament on Tuesday, acknowledging the party infighting that had defined the debate.

Reporting from London, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic described the vote as a “victory in name only” for Starmer.

“His government was facing such a huge rebellion from his own Labour MPs that there was no chance that he could pass this bill in the form that it was originally laid out,” she said.

Starmer had ridden into office last year on the back of the largest parliamentary majority in UK history, currently holding 403 of 650 seats. That majority, he maintained, would help him avoid parliamentary dysfunction that had defined the body throughout years of Conservative rule.

But Starmer’s signature plan to trim down the UK’s ballooning welfare system soon ran into controversy, particularly when it came to disability benefits.

Starmer’s plan pitched raising the threshold for the benefits by requiring a higher threshold for physical or mental disability.

That prompted more than 120 Labour lawmakers to publicly say they would vote against the bill. They included Rachael Maskell, one of the leading opponents, who called the cuts “Dickensian” and said they “belong to a different era and a different party”.

In concessions to party members, the government backed down on implementing tougher eligibility rules for the payments until a wider review of the welfare system had been completed.

The government also pivoted to only have the reforms apply to future applicants, and not current claimants, as they initially sought.

While the government had at first hoped to save 5 billion pounds ($6.9bn) a year by 2030, the savings under the new plan is estimated to be closer to 2 billion pounds.

“This is a huge blow to the authority of Keir Starmer,” Al Jazeera’s Veselinovic said, “a prime minister who came into power on the back of a massive electoral landslide, who is now unable to pass what his government called flagship legislation without stripping it of nearly all its meaning.”

Sir Keir Starmer has said the UK’s benefits system is broken and fixing it is a “moral imperative”, a day after a backbench Labour revolt saw him forced into a U-turn on welfare cuts.

The prime minister told the Welsh Labour Party conference in Llandudno that the government would not take away the welfare “safety net that vulnerable people rely on”.

But he said he could not let benefits “become a snare for those who can and want to work”.

Despite the government’s concession on its plans to reform welfare, some Labour MPs want further changes, while the Unite union has called for the proposal to be dropped altogether ahead of a vote on Tuesday.

The BBC understands whips and cabinet ministers – including Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves – have been phoning or texting Labour MPs over the weekend, going through the names of the initial rebels in a bid to get an accurate assessment of potential voting.

Some MPs are saying they have yet to make their mind up on how to vote and are awaiting a statement on Monday from Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall that will spell out government concessions.

Speaking at the conference in north Wales on Saturday, Sir Keir said fixing the “broken” benefits system needed to be done because it was “failing people every day”, leaving “a generation of young people written off for good and the cost spiralling out of control”.

“Fixing it is a moral imperative, but we need to do it in a Labour way,” he added.

The government’s initial plans, aimed at bringing down the welfare bill, would have made it harder for people to claim personal independence payment (Pip), a benefit paid to 3.7 million people with long-term physical or mental health conditions.

But following a rebellion among Labour MPs and the likelihood the government would be defeated in the Commons, the government announced the stricter criteria would only apply to new claimants.

It reversed its plans to freeze the health-related component of universal credit, and the payment will now rise in line with inflation for existing recipients.

Ministers will also carry out a review of the Pip assessment process, with input from disability organisations.

A £1bn support package to help people into work, originally scheduled for 2029, will be fast-tracked.

A new “reasoned amendment” to the bill will be put down on Monday by rebel MPs, which will reflect government concessions but is expected to be similar to the now-withdrawn earlier amendment that sought to block changes to the benefits system.

The BBC understands that around 50 Labour MPs currently back that new amendment.

That number is likely to increase but the expectation is it will not reach the 80-plus needed to put the government in danger of defeat. However it would still represent a significant rebellion.

Rebel MPs are also expected to hold a briefing on Monday night at Westminster with various disability charities.

Labour MP Diane Abbott earlier told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that she thought the result of a vote on the new plans would be tight, partly because backbenchers are still “upset about the lack of consultation” and because of “the notion of a two-tier benefit system”.

But former Labour justice secretary Lord Falconer told the programme that “sensible” changes to the welfare reforms were “pretty significant”, and that he believed opposition among Labour MPs was “shrinking and shrinking”.

Debbie Abrahams, the Labour MP who chairs the Work and Pensions Select Committee, told the BBC on Friday: “The concessions are a good start, they are very good concessions and they will protect existing claimants.

“However there are still concerns about new claimants. It would not be right for me not to do anything just to spare the prime minister an inconvenience.”

Ahead of Sir Keir’s conference speech, Unite called for the “entire welfare bill to be dropped and for the government to start again”, with general secretary Sharon Graham accusing Labour of “attacking the most vulnerable in our society”.

“The government’s latest plans for disabled benefits cuts are divisive and sinister,” she said.

“Creating a two-tier system where younger disabled people and those who become disabled in the future will be disadvantaged and denied access to work and education, is morally wrong.”

Getty Images

Which benefits would be cut?

Why is the government trying to cut welfare spending?

What would the impact of the reforms be?

What about the impact on employment?

What are the rebels’ objections?

Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, resigned from their positions on the Democratic National Committee. This could be great news.

I don’t really know, because the actual reasons remain murky.

“While I am proud to be a Democrat,” Weingarten told DNC Chair Ken Martin in her resignation letter, “I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities.”

Color me skeptical this is the real reason. I doubt Martin’s stated policy is to shrink the Democratic tent or refrain from engaging with “more and more of our communities” — whatever that means. Much of the reporting on the resignations revolves around old-fashioned Democratic disarray and internal power struggles. Weingarten and Saunders had supported Martin’s opponent in the recent election of a new DNC chair. That may be all there is to it, which would be a shame.

That’s because the Democratic Party is a mess. Don’t get me wrong, so is the Republican Party, but for different reasons. The GOP is also in charge, controlling the White House and both branches of Congress. Moreover, for all the problems the Republican Party has, it has the wind at its back and remains more popular than the Democrats. In 2024, it made impressive strides with many core Democratic demographic constituencies, including Black, Latino and young voters.

The GOP has a story to tell voters. You may not like the story. You may think it’s not actually following through on the vision it’s selling, but Republicans know how to articulate what they’re for. Democrats not so much.

Historically, the Democratic Party is the party of government. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “It is the purpose of government to see that not only the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved.”

The Democratic Party has gotten itself into a mess because it has evolved — or devolved — into a party fairly perceived as more concerned with the interests of the few and less concerned with the welfare and rights of the many. That was the underlying message of that ad the Trump campaign played more than any other (30,000 times!). It showed a clip of Kamala Harris explaining her support for government-funded sex-change surgeries for illegal immigrants. It closed with: “She’s for they/them. He’s for you.” The anti-transgender message was obvious (and broadly popular), but the subtext was more important: Harris is for niche issues that excite activists while Trump is for the meat-and-potatoes concerns of the common American.

Few groups represent the Democrats’ broader problem better than groups such as Weingarten’s AFT (teachers unions typically make up about 1 in 10 of the delegates at Democratic conventions). During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Weingarten consistently put the needs of union members over the general welfare, while insisting she was putting children first. She opposed reopening schools long after it was remotely necessary to operate remotely and successfully badgered Joe Biden to violate his pledge to reopen them quickly.

AFT and other public-sector unions, such as AFSCME, are an ATM for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is responsive to donors. For instance, one of the first things President Biden did when he took office was issue an executive order repealing a Trump administration policy that restricted government employees from spending more than 25% of their time doing union business while on the job. He put the number back up to 100%.

There’s a reason FDR disliked the idea of unionizing government employees. The government shouldn’t be captured by special interests that use state power to further their ends over the general welfare. Democrats instinctively understand this when it comes to corporate interests but seem blind to it for members of their own coalition. Biden’s effort to lawlessly cancel student debt wasn’t just terrible policy; it also sent the signal that the party put the interests of the few above the many.

As a conservative, I don’t typically root for the Democratic Party. But I’ve come to realize that our system depends on two healthy, sane parties competing over best policies. When one party goes off the rails, it gives permission for the other party to do likewise. If the departure of Weingarten and Saunders is a sign the party is coming to realize that, that’s good news indeed.

@JonahDispatch