Kansas passes law banning food stamp receipients from pools, movie theaters

[King]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/06/kansas-wants-to-ban-welfare-recipients-from-seeing-movies-going-swimming-on-governments-dime/

In summation, anyone who receives assistance in Kansas will be required to have the bank accounts frozen and limited to $25 a day withdrawal and all credit/debit card purchases will be monitored, restricting them from purchasing any "luxury items" with their own money.

It's this kind of unnecessary spitefulness that needs to be purged from the Republican Party. Forget the morality of welfare and mooching and all the talking points. This plan (and other similar welfare reform proposal popping up in GOP states) simply make no sense from a fiscal conservative/small government stand point. The bureaucracy required to enforce this kind of intrusion and restriction on recipients will likely cost significantly more than if they just gave these people thousands of dollars in straight up cash.  It's pure slashing of the nose to spite the face.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Evil. All there is to say.

[Boston Bread]

This is hard to believe.

[pbrower2a]

It would make more sense for welfare recipients in Kansas to boycott any products involving the Koch family that owns Kansas politics.

Banned from using swimming pools? Some of the other stuff makes some sense (like gambling venues, sexually-rated businesses, etc...)

The purpose is not so much to promote caution in personal spending (poverty itself enforces that!) but to make poor people willing to take any job available at whatever terms.

[pbrower2a]

Movement Conservatism is cruel. Cruelty is the cause of almost all preventable evil.

[Reginald]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lmao

It'll say a lot though if there's no #BoycottKansas accompanying this.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what the living breathing f--k

[Bojack Horseman]

You sure this isn't from The Onion?

[they don't love you like i love you]

So in other words Kansas is going to spend MORE money on welfare services, since enforcing something that requires this level of micromanagement isn't going to be cheap.

[pbrower2a]

So in other words Kansas is going to spend MORE money on welfare services, since enforcing something that requires this level of micromanagement isn't going to be cheap.

Are there no bank secrecy laws?

25 dollars from an ATM?

This is going to encourage an underground economy of evasion. This is a legislative disaster. 

[DrScholl]

I think a bill stripping all legislators of salary and benefits is a much better idea. They should not get paid to pass these sort of laws.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are there no bank secrecy laws?

25 dollars from an ATM?

Welfare benefits these days aren't generally done via a check or a bank deposit but rather through an EBT card which has the funds come directly from the state.  What strikes me as odd is the $25 ATM limit.  Many ATMs only give out money in multiples of $20, so this would effectively be a $20 limit.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Strings attached to welfare benefits. Whatever.

[Türkisblau]

I'm all for requirements to have access to welfare, but every analysis I've seen of these restrictions have shown them to just be ridiculous and pretty off the wall. Kansas continues to be a horrible state.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Evil. All there is to say.

[King]

Strings attached to welfare benefits. Whatever.

Taxpayer waste on administrators and lawyers. Whatever.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This is probably the most overtly loathsome law I've seen passed since the bill to force kids whose parents are on assistance to only shop at thrift stores.

[pbrower2a]

No alcohol, no sexually-related entertainment, no gambling... OK. I think that we are going to see the bartering of things eligible for welfare purchases.

I can see an overt two-tier culture, an economic Apartheid, forming. Poverty is rarely a choice.    

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is this thing even constitutional?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Is this thing even constitutional?

I could see it being challenged under privacy laws.

[Reaganfan]

Makes sense. Basically, it's saying, "Okay, we'll give you food stamps paid for by the American taxpayer. But if we find out you're using assistance for shopping at Victoria's secret, or going to the movies, then we take it away."

Similar to mandatory drug testing for welfare.

Unless I'm missing something, if so please elaborate.

[King]

Makes sense. Basically, it's saying, "Okay, we'll give you food stamps paid for by the American taxpayer. But if we find out you're using assistance for shopping at Victoria's secret, or going to the movies, then we take it away."

Similar to mandatory drug testing for welfare.

Unless I'm missing something, if so please elaborate.

Which option makes more sense, as a small government conservative:

(1) Paying $1000 per person, $300 in benefits, and $700 to salary a nurse to drug test, an accountant to monitor spending, a social worker to monitor behavior, a lawyer to prosecute fraudsters, a second lawyer to defend the state against rejected claim lawsuits, and an ombudsman to monitor the nurse, the accountant, and social worker.

OR

(2) Paying $300 per person, all $300 in benefits, paying $0 in the rest and risking fraud and occassional welfare queens?

[publicunofficial]

I can't believe Republicans are okay with the bank account freezing aspect. The government taking control of your money and demanding how it be spent is hardly a libertarian concept.

It's almost as if poor people just completely don't matter to them.

[MATTROSE94]

Wouldn't a law such as this violate some of the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[Reaganfan]

Wouldn't a law such as this violate some of the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Doubtful. You can't take a law passed by a few idealistic bleeding hearts 50 years ago the basis for taking apart what the country always has been.