Sen. Errington has introduced SB 583 which would place an asset limitation for people receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF.) Families with more than $15,000 in non-exempt assets would not be eligible for TANF. When you look at the property that is exempt, however, the limitation does not strike me as overly severe. Exempt property is:

(1) Real property that is the primary residence of the family.
(2) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) of equity in one (1) motor vehicle.
(3) The current market value of any apparatus installed in a motor vehicle for the use or benefit of a disabled person.
(4) Household goods and personal effects.
(5) Livestock, farm implements, and tools used in the production of meat, dairy, or produce for home consumption.
(6) The proceeds, or any interest earned on the proceeds, of casualty insurance received as a result of: (A) damage;(B) destruction; (C) loss; or (D) theft; of exempt real or personal property if the applicant or recipient demonstrates that the proceeds are being used to replace the exempt property.
(7) One (1) burial plot and one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) of equity value in one (1) written funeral contract for each TANF family member.
(8) Real property during the first six (6) month period after the date the property is listed for sale.
(9) An individual development account established under IC 4-4-28.

The problem with trying to codify this kind of thing is that it’s tough or impossible to think of every situation where there might be assets but where you might want TANF available in any case. For example, I had some involvement in a case where a little kid was horribly burned. He got a settlement quite a bit above $15,000, but that money was put in a trust with court orders to distribute relatively small amounts every year for incidental expenses and a larger amount for ongoing medical expenses. The bulk of it, however, was set aside for the kid’s future use. The injuries were severe enough that he was going to have significant health issues, probably his entire life. Aside from the need to plan for future expenses there is always a concern that a parent, particularly a parent with money problems, might not be diligent in spending the money only for the benefit of the child.

So, in such a case, should the kid’s personal injury money be considered for TANF purposes? I would be inclined to say “no,” but certainly a credible policy argument could be made for “yes.” The point is, that is just one scenario I doubt legislators are thinking of while this legislation is under consideration. I’m sure there are countless others. Legislators have a tough job when you get right down to it.