You’ve gotta feel bad for the Minnesota Republican Party. Flip just 5,000 votes in the last gubernatorial election, and they’d be the ones gleefully dismantling civil society piece by piece. But no. Tom Emmer had to lose, and now Wisconsin Republicans — frickin’Wisconsin — get to be the poster children for the Republicans’ war on everyone who isn’t a multimillionaire.
Well, the Minnesota GOP may not be able to enact the kind of hateful, spite-filled legislation that’s turned Scott Walker into a national pariah, but by cracky, they’re going to at least force Mark Dayton to veto their viciousness:
Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.
[…]
House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP – and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid – could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card.
And of course, I’m sure those business would be able to enroll for free. And I’m sure that there’d be no kind of gaming the system to steer these funds to businesses that gave money to the right people. Of course this wouldn’t be a gateway to massive corruption.
But far more offensive than the fact that this would set things up nicely for those lucky, GOP-connected businesses who got in on the ground floor is the assertion that all those poor people are using their public assistance on booze and cigarettes.
First off, what if they are? I know, this shows I’m just a crazy socialist, but I really don’t care if a poor person takes their meager assistance and buys a beer or a smoke with it. Is it purely necessary for survival? Folks, very little in our lives is “purely necessary” for survival. But seriously, have we reached a point where we get angry if the poor have even the slightest moment of relaxation?
Yes. Of course we have. Silly of me to ask.
Second, is there any evidence of the massive fraud that the GOP alleges? As usual, no, there isn’t.
And third, and most important — what does it benefit us to keep those on public assistance from having cash? Leave aside the corruption angle. As Freakout Nation points out, this would effectively bar those on assistance from using public transportation. Which would kind of make it difficult for them to, you know, find a job or get an education or do anything but walk to the government-sanctioned poor person store on the corner, which charges 350% more than Target, but you can’t use your debit card at Target, now, can you?
Aid to the most desperately needy in our society doesn’t just benefit them. The money they spend on food and shelter (and yes, the occasional candy bar or cigarette) helps to support businesses. That money then can be used by businesses to expand their operations, to hire new employees, and to help people get off of assistance.
Yes, there’s a point at which a safety net becomes too comfortable. But the Minnesota GOP is now looking to make the safety net a noose, strangling those who dare to use it. Again and again, it’s a class war — with the rich attacking everyone else. I’m just glad, as ever, that we elected Mark Dayton.
Richard:
Because tax money is a limited resource. I have no moral compunction against you buying a six-pack of beer. But if you buy it with my money, then there’s someone else who needs my money who is going to be a couple of loaves of bread short because you are using that money instead. I’d rather give the money to the lady who needs more bread. By giving you a debit card that a) no one will permit you to pay for that six-pack for and b) won’t let you take out more than $20/month in cash that you can use to bypass the rule that says you can’t buy beer with it, I can lower the amount of money you get and raise the amount of money that she gets.
If you can get a job in that grocery store bagging groceries and use the money to buy a sixer for after work or candy for your kids then go for it. Earn the money yourself and you get to say what it gets spent on. But if my money is intended to keep people from going hungry then the more we ensure that it is used for just that purpose the more people I can spread that money out among. You are misdirected on the intent here. The morality is not “poor people don’t deserve pleasure”, it’s “let’s make sure we help as many people as possible”.
But Ron, as I argued above, it’s possible that restricted spending like that isn’t efficient; rather than causing people to not spend food stamps on beer, it can cause them to spend more of their food stamps on beer. I wonder if anyone’s done an empirical study of this question?
RonF:
I just want to point out that by focusing on the beer, you did not really answer my question. So let me ask if differently: Do you see buying snacks for your kids, or cake for dessert, or other such things in the same way that you see buying a six pack of beer?
ETA: Sorry, I just saw that I missed the reference to “candy for you kid” in your comment. I don’t know that there is a point in arguing about this, since we clearly have radically different points of view, but I will say that even your stated intent is to help as many people as possible, micromanaging the lives of the poor in this way cannot help but have a moral component to it in addition to whatever practical motivation there may be. I am reminded of the song–I can’t remember the title–in which the landlady of a guy who can’t pay the rent happens to see him doing something (leaning against a lampost, perhaps grabbing a bite to eat) other than looking for a job and assumes that, of course, he has not been out looking for a job and has, instead, been bumming around all day. In fact, he’s been out looking; she just happened to see him when he was taking a rest.
There is a deep suspicion in US culture of people who are poor, unemployed, etc. that they simply are not trying hard enough. I am not suggesting you personally hold that suspicion, because I don’t know, but the suspicion is itself embedded in the culture in part because how highly we value the idea of the “self-made man” [sic]. To me, a policy telling all people on welfare that they can’t use the money they receive from the government every so often to buy themselves six pack of beer or candy for their kids smacks of that suspicion. And I think that’s unfortunate.
I would like to point out that you have to qualify for welfare; it’s not just a free for all, and the cost of living index has a great deal to do with it (which is artificially low anyways, IMHO.)
So the argument that someone buying beer is taking away from someone else’s loaves of bread is facetious. You either qualify or you don’t, and you get an amount based on how far down the pole you are that is not affected by others’ need level.
And, I agree with RJN – all of this smacks of moral condescension, A.K.A. bootstraps. $3 won’t buy boots, but it will buy a beer, and man are you going to need it to self-medicate since you can’t afford the prescription drugs…or much else.
I’ll just repeat a statement I made above:
“I can’t recall in all my years of reading political analysis and commentaries the kind of parsing out of rich people’s lives, and how they spend money given to their companies or organizations, in the way that is regularly done to poor folks. ”
The nitpicking about a six pack of beer and candy bars is sickening. Billions of our federal tax dollars are being wasted on wars right now. Millions are handed out to corporate interests by state and local officials every year. We are wasting millions feeding bloated HMO administrations that are more interested in making profits than health care.
I know the discussion has moved on, but I think it’s important to note that Kristy @86 provided incorrect information. Minnesota EBT includes both food benefits and cash benefits.
From http://tinyurl.com/4uyhqdy
“EBT is operational statewide. All food stamp recipients and approximately 87 percent of cash recipients are actively receiving their benefits through EBT. Public assistance clients use EBT cards to access their cash and Food Support benefits through automated teller machines (ATMs) and point of sale (POS) equipment in grocery stores, banks, and other commercial locations.”