Pennsylvania bill would ban use of welfare benefits to buy alcohol

Pennsylvania bill would ban use of welfare benefits to buy alcohol

Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill that would bar welfare recipients from using taxpayer-backed benefit cards to buy alcohol.

The measure, which also bans use of child support payments for alcohol purchases, unanimously passed the state House last week. It now heads to the state Senate, where a spokesman for Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, says he believes it has general support.

State Rep. Dave Reed, R-Indiana, said he submitted the measure after learning on a tour of a county assistance office a few years ago that such purchases were not illegal.

"I had no idea at the time that such a loophole existed," he said. "I don't think most people did."

Administration officials, however, question whether the bill is aimed at a problem that doesn't exist, saying there is no evidence that recipients abuse their benefits. Others say it perpetuates a stereotype that people who receive government assistance are irresponsible.

The state Department of Public Welfare and Liquor Control Board do not compile statistics on such purchases by the approximately 2 million residents who get cash assistance, food stamps or medical assistance.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/05/pennsylvania_bill_would_ban_us.html

This is the very definition of Big Gubment telling you how to live your life. Not to mention a stifling of free enterprise.

Shame.

I don't see a good reason why this loophole shouldn't be closed, alcohol isn't a need. I don't see this any differently than excessive pay limits on companies getting bailout money, when you get money from the government expect restrictions.

Alcohol is NOT a good purchase for someone who's on social assistance.

But it's strange that they start screaming for prohibitions only where it concerns poor people.

Waaay back in the olden days (when I was young), things that had fur , imported leather goods, or were "trinket-y"... jewelry of all kinds (even the costume type), perfumes, cosmetics, and other items that were designated as "not necessary" were slapped with a 10% luxury-tax..

Government is already doing this again now , with tobacco, and it's high time to do it for liquor & "spirits"...and take out food & non-nutritious junk foods of all kinds...& soda pop & flavored water too..

The thing is this.. when we block a significant number of people OUT of the "game", and make it almost imposible for them to make a living wage..and then we "offer" them a pittance, to keep themselves barely alive, it does seem to be an extra "twist o the knife" , to monitor what they use the money for....unless we devise a way to apply the same "bad for you" logic to the rest of the people too:)

Taxpayer assistance shouldn't go to buy booze.

you could easily prohibit the sale of alcohol at stores that scan product codes.

But it's telling that the move to actually do something about spending that shouldn't be done is only targeted towards poor people.

The wealthy are huge recipients of tax payer money, but always the focus is on the poor. Perhaps if that heavily subsidized boot of the wealthy weren't so firmly pressed on the neck of the little guy, the little guy wouldn't need assistance to begin with.

Enough belittling of the average person. Get the wealthy off of the teat and then talk to me about scrutinizing the little guy.

take your pick.

As long as the middle class (what's left of it) can be convinced that the poor are the "bad guys" they won't notice that their pockets are being picked by the wealthy.

The irony of it is that there are way too many people who think they'll wind up wealthy some day when in realty they're more apt to wind up barely getting by (all it takes is one expensive illness) - and the powers that be have those people supporting the dismantling of the safety net that they themselves may need someday.

Why they'd need a law to stop sales, is beyond me. They could simply not accept the cards. Beer distribution on the other hand is done at privately owned beer stores or in bars. I'm surprised either take the cards. Beer stores sell beer, pop, and snacks like pretzels. This won't interfere with any "free market" because we don't have a free market alcohol distribution system. There are only a few stores in any town that sell alcoholic beverages and it will not be a major change to have them stop accepting the cards. The cards' functionality in grocery stores will remain unchanged.

It will play well to their red-meat constituents.

But it also cements the meme of the lazy, alcoholic welfare recipient.

just not money that they're supposed to use to feed themselves and their kids.

just not money that they're supposed to use to feed themselves and their kids.

they used to do this with stamps and now they do it the card....

Why SHOULD food stamps be used to buy alcohol?

Once we finally get national health care folks will use the same logic "Why should we treat someone who didn't wear their seat belt, or smoked, or ate fast food, etc"

I remember when David Duke proposed drug testing people on welfare, was against that as well.

Not my business how they use the money we give them, anymore than I can tell my X what to do with the child support I give her.

Soda pop is bad for people, but they can buy that. The list could grow quite large, where does it stop?

to force others to live their way and not the 'sinful' way they currently are.

Were all the fears we had over bush from day 1 a logical fallacy or were we simply extrapolating a future trend based on past performance?

There is also the value judgment present here - the value is that we prevent someone from buying something for reason X, it is then a value which can be applied to other items they would buy - thus one would rightly fear/project that since that value was instituted previously it will be so again.

The argument is that the "principle" being applied has to do with behavior that's (statistically) harmful to one's health and the 'logic' of banning that behavior by force of law when the public bears the cost of health care in common. There's a "liberty principle" at risk when the inferred cost becomes more simply tallied. This, of course, ignores a plethora of considerations, not the least of which is that long-lived people actually 'cost' society more than those who die relatively quickly as a result of some behavior.

We have more than adequate evidence to sanely conclude that the Nanny-staters would escalate their attempts to constrain the behavior of others and no evidence to infer that there's any limit on that zeal.

your child support to buy booze, cigarettes, etc., instead of providing for your child(ren)? I'm sorry, but that's fucked up. Food stamps are to buy essential food needs for individuals and families, not to get high off of. Period.

Being able to force her to use it the way I want her to is not a reasonable expectation and would be nearly impossible to implement.

And suppose that said person getting welfare was able to meet their needs and had money left over each month? How do we know?

Freedom to make choices is something I hold near and dear, limiting these choices then having the economy crash and more people need welfare means more people being controlled by the few in what they choose to do.

I always thought that CS came from a non-custodial spouse and was required to be used entirely and directly for the needs of the child - I'd have big problems with someone using that for alcohol.

Welfare I thought was more general family support, and I don't particularly object if someone uses that for a recreational purpose after all housing and nutritional (etc) needs were met...

entirely and directly for the children. That's a common belief but it is wrong. The recipient parent may use it however he or she likes and the payor has NO recourse if he or she does not approve. As long as the child's basic needs are met and no crimes are being committed (like buying illegal drugs, for example), nothing will be done no matter what the recipient parent does or doesn't do with the money.

****************************

I always thought that CS came from a non-custodial spouse and was required to be used entirely and directly for the needs of the child - I'd have big problems with someone using that for alcohol.

things that I disapprove of...

My thoughts exactly.

Why not implement programs that discourage people from drinking?

I can't believe that people would actually have a problem with this. Look my sister works for one my state's welfare agency and believe alcohol/drug abuse a huge problem amongst clients. So the prohibition against alcohol should have been a given furthermore I think the state should go a step further and restrict Food Stamps to just necessity items, such as meats, vegetables, juices, water, fruits, because Food Stamps should also not go towards buying soda, chips, and other types of junk food.

why prohibiting alcohol has never caused a single alcoholic to sober up.

It's pretty frightening, actually, to see someone who apparently knows so little about substance abuse or addiction feel so easy about dictating the needs of others.

people just sell their cards or food stamps for cash. Stupid.

There's Dominic Pileggi R-Delaware, and Dave Reed R-Indiana. I thought at first this was a bill in the U.S. Congress even though it said it was the Penn. Legislature. Are there towns in Penn. named Delaware and Indiana?

:sarcasm:

It's high time that someone brought attention to the oft neglected right to taxpayer funded beer money.

nt

And it's bad for you.

We should ban the purchase of that too...

These folks should be allowed a heart-healthy diet like anyone else. :P

What a dumb idea that will probably end up costing more than it saves.

IIRC there was a time when the PLCB accepted only cash

But the part that is food stamps should go to food.

And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

I see no hypocrisy in saying that if the intended goal of the food stamp benefit is to provide food for the recipient that it should have to be spent on food. It makes sense.

I was talking about the regulation in general. It won't prevent those on welfare from buying booze and it is going to be tough to enforce. That's all I was trying to say.

I also don't think it is designed to prevent people on welfare from buying booze, but rather discourage them from buying booze. When you give someone $500 cash, the economic choices they make with that money are going to be different than if you give them $400 in food coupons that are only redeemable for food and $100 in cash.

Suppose we were giving away $500/month and for the sake of simplicity we say that the products purchasable are food, beer, and cigarettes (housing and utilities we've already taken care of with vouchers for those things) Beer is $12 for a case of 24 or 50cents/ can, smokes are $6/ pack and food varies depending on quality.

With the $500 in cash, one can spend the money any way one chooses. Suppose person A smokes half a pack/ day, drinks 3 beers per day, and buys food with the rest. His figures are $90/month for smokes $45/month for beer, and $375/month for food ($12.50/day, which means that he can afford pretty healthy food). Now, one could tut-tut about the smoking, but basically this is a fairly responsible use of money.

Suppose person B likes to smoke more. He wants a whole pack each day. So for him it's $180/month for smokes, $45/month for beer, and $275 for food (about $9/day for food. He's buying cheaper stuff or maybe hitting the value menu)

Person C likes to smoke as much as B and drink a 6 pack each day. $180/m smokes $90/m beer, $230/m food ($7.66/day)

Person D is a drunk and drinks a 12 pack a day, but doesn't smoke. $180/m beer, $320/m food ($10.66/day)

Person E drinks a 6 pack and smokes 2 packs a day. $360/m smokes $90/m beer, $50/m food ($1.66/day, this guy is basically living on Ramen Noodles and cigarettes)

And of course there are other combinations, but the point here is that a large variety of spending habits is possible when giving out cash. Now, we give this money out because we don't want anyone going hungry and none of the people are, but person E is coming damned close to the borderline with the way he spends his money. So, looking at this, how would you decide to get person E to spend the money more like person A? I'd do it by issuing more food stamps and less cash.

Or something more fungible like cigarettes. The going rate is 50% face value, cash, for food stamps (in Lynn, MA as of last week), and the underground lenders make out like bandits by redeeming them for presumably non-existent groceries which the "grocer" takes a commission on for laundering the ticket and (perhaps) stocking enough money-losing groceries to satisfy the government's definition of a retailer. But it's a moot point if Lyric is correct downthread, and this only affects point-of-sale purchases without hindering cash withdrawals for the same item(s), but as social engineering goes, "issuing more food stamps and less cash" potentially enriches the wrong people (i.e., the already wealthy) in my limited experience on teh street.

Lyric's point does make this moot, but moving beyond the particular application in PA to the idea of issuing coupons for particular goods, trying to circumvent the system is costly, which is desirable from the perspective of the public good because we want them spending the money on food. The expense incurred by trying to do this helps to further deter the misuse of the funds. Thus while it isn't possible to completely control every recipient's spending to meet the goal of the program (and the goal is increasing the food expenditure of the poor), those attempting to misuse the funds will find it to be a waste of their resources and such abuse would be discouraged the same way as the initial poor patterns of consumption would be discouraged.

But let's ban it anyway.

:eyes:

all one needs to do is go the bank and cash it out.

paying for it.

You are paying for it even if they use their own hard earned cash -- because if they had used the cash for food instead of booze and cigs then you would not be buying their food.


All that said, there's no evidence of any kind that any significant portion people getting bennies are abusing their benefits.

And unenforceable.

Back in the day, when I was on welfare, foodstamps, lived in the projects was on drugs and alcohol,I wouldn't have given a shit less about laws like this. Or any other laws for that matter. There is ideology, and supercilious opinion and then there is reality. The reality of that level of poverty is what it is.


So can those who owe bunches of back child support buy alcohol? Just sayin'.

Overwhelming. Here is a man who majored in political science to become a career politician ( has no idea what the real world is about). Who he himself has little problem using HIS expense account to buy alcohol at taxpayers expense plus the use of spa's and expensive junkets on "business" for the State. This is nothing but small town bigotry and that's what this town ( and the Pa. T zone) is all about. Yep ; it's the poor people who have all the money and they're spending at your expense....couldn't be Dave Reed himself. Dave if you want to do something for this town . get off your ass and bring some industry into the area and develop the economy like you told us you would....you self righteous SOB. And yes this is nothing but Republican bigotry for a problem that doesn't exist!

My local Kroger probably 30% of the shoppers there are on some sort of aid - a whole lot more if you count social security and medicare. Already the ones using the food stamp debit cards or WIC just run 2 orders, one with the stuff they can buy with bennies and the other one with all the "prohibited" items.

Big fucking deal..............

Both Food Stamps and cash welfare benefits are accessed through the same EBT card--however, you cannot use the Food Stamp portion of the card to buy alcohol, tobacco, or any other non-food items. The two accounts are separate, and at the point of sale, you must choose whether you wish your purchase to be debited from your Food Stamps or your cash welfare benefit account. They are talking about banning point-of-sale alcohol purchases via the cash welfare accounts, NOT the Food Stamp accounts.

Now, this law is stupid. You can withdraw your EBT cash welfare benefits via any ATM and just use the cash to pay for alcohol purchases. All they're doing is making it illegal to do it with the card itself. It's not illegal to use cash welfare benefits to buy alcohol because it would literally be impossible to enforce. How would any government agency know whether or not a welfare recipient used their welfare benefits to buy the alcohol, or some other source of funds? What if a car-less neighbor gave the welfare recipient the money to go buy a six-pack for them, since they were already going to the store? There's no way to enforce this, so nobody's ever bothered to try and make it illegal.

The ONLY thing that will become illegal under this bill is the use of an EBT card to buy alcohol as a direct, point-of-sale card purchase. This is useless; every liquor store has an ATM, so it just takes a few extra minutes to withdraw the cash needed to buy it THAT way.

Stupid waste of taxpayer money for a toothless bill.

i needed the clarification

... if you are on public assistance, you shouldn't be pissing it away on liquor or manicures.

but the enforcement system isn't worth it. I saw this phrase once, I think here or Daily Show, and so many times it comes to mind when someone has an idea that 'should be obvious.'

"Minimum deterrence for the guilty, maximum punishment for the innocent"

Any jerk who wants to misuse the money will find an easy way around it.

...to "splurge" for even a cheap bottle of wine.

That said, people on assistance should be able to live like, well, like PEOPLE. (But OTOH, so should those of us who are NOT on benefits, and a lot of us can't really.)

buy with their welfare money. They're on WELFARE, for chrissake. Their lives are already pretty challenging. If a little booze helps them deal with the stress, why the hell should I care?

I don't have an overwhelming need to control the lives of poor people.

lost her husband, mother and sister in the same year.

She bought a six-pack, probably with her unemployment.

Must be nice to be so self-righteous. Do you feel better about yourself?

:shrug:

I hate smug superiority and self-righteousness.

Unemployment and Welfare? I'm not really understanding why you're statement is remotely relevant to the topic at hand. It's like someone trying to compare Social Security to Welfare again completely different things.

drains the cans outside the grocery store & pays for alcohol with the deposit fee. Obviously inefficient & he doesn't eat much.

what's the real purpose of this legislature? It surely doesn't prevent social safety net funding from being spent on alcohol. It's more like yet another morality referendum condemning the poor for moral laxity and fiscal irresponsibility. Ah,the hypocrisy of our country's elected representatives indulging in such pointless exercises in self-righteousness at public expense while the economy continues to collapse under the "sound" management of their sponsors in the financial industry!

which is composed of alcoholics, whether or not they are on welfare. I know of many in my life who drank heavily, including my aunt and uncles. Alcoholism is hereditary, and defies being linked to a single social class.

While I don't know that precise percentage, it is probably fairly close within those of the lowest social class. But the ultra-wealthy, the middle class and anyone that exists outside a defined class are just as likely to be addicted to alcohol.

Instead of penalizing that defined group as such, perhaps reaching out to them with free support groups would be more beneficial. Shoot, man, if I had to live on welfare as it currently exists, I'd take up copious drinking as well!

Besides, if we really wanted to punish those on welfare, we would:

limit welfare from being spent on all tobacco products;
limit welfare from being spent on all junk food;
limit welfare from being spent on toys;
limit welfare from being spent on doctor/hospital co-pays;
limit welfare from being spent on all prescription drugs;
limit welfare from being spent on DVDs;
limit from being spent on magazines;

etc.

Then, we could tell them to have a "nice" life, and ignore them all over again.

But there isn't, so I don't.

I agree with all... if we think exec pay should be limited for those getting bailout money, why not dictate what people that get public assistance can buy? because... it is unenforceable and I am aware that those that want alcohol, weed, etc. will just sell food stamps,etc. to get it and yes if I were on public assistance, I would want to drink Rum every night. What good republicans(oh, that is an oxymoron) don't stop to think about is the reality of the money cycle and that transfer payments keep them in business!! and... this is all about the perception that those rugged, independent minded, worked myself to get where I am, selfish, ignorant, etc.. oh, forget it!!

the important thing here is that food stamps and public assistance money(I hate the term welfare!) can buy all the ingrediants to make one's own alcohol. sugar, malt, hops, fruit, yeast, etc... are all you need. We need to start a movement to teach the people how to make their own....

and I shouldn't even start on child support... the whole system is useless, unfair to both custodial and non... why we put up with it I don't know. The non-custodial parent cannot deduct the money for tax purposes and the custodial doesn't have to claim it and it creates negative feelings and anger in many cases and doesn't do a whole lot to help the kids...

I say EVERYONE should be given a job or responsibility or something to justify a good paycheck and then let them do whatever they damn well want to do with it!

provided they could get a piece of the profits. It's amazing how righteous these bastards can become when they see an opportunity for a little cheap publicity. Also amazing how many of their families have interests in PA's new gambling "industry". I am sure they won't prohibit anyone from gambling.

mark

the first obvious step here is that the alcohol lobbyists will "convince" ;-) $$$ them to stop this.


The booze boys count on the federal money getting back in their pockets

Shit everyone is complaining about 'my tax dollars' but my tax dollars goes to fund a war that I don't support and sure as hell costs ALOT more then a f'in 6-pack. If they can cover there expenses as well as buying alcohol I have no problem. The people complaining about tax dollars blow my mind, there are ALOT of worse things that cost EVEN more that I don't support but I deal with it anyways. I tell you what, over 50% of those in the armed forces drink off our tax dollars. I sure did. :beer:

suffering alcohol addiction uses her welfare money that is meant for her family to feed the addiction that also would be okay with you? Look there are some hard-working people who have just fallen on hard times on Welfare but there is also a large portion that is on government assistance due to combination of addiction issues and lack of education.

I can get drunk for $2(high gravity malt liquor) around here. I also don't fault people who are addicted because I'm addicted myself. I can also understand why people would choose to drink in such a situation, ever try living under a bridge sober? My tax dollars goes to alot of things I don't support which is back to my point and our tax dollars pays alot of people to buy alot of stupid things. So given your scenario what do you propose? Banning alcohol from a mother with kids or just everyone?

on edit: I don't think people on welfare are going to buy expensive bottles of Grey Goose or Hennessy, they are probaly going to buy cheap beer that doesn't hurt the overall budget.

addicted it makes okay for a mother whose children are barely being fed and clothed properly to suffer further for her addiction? What the hell does living under a bridge have to do with anything is you're point that all Welfare recipients live under bridges LOL.

But this argument that because are tax dollars are already wasted what's one more thing to add to the list is a stupid argument imo.

There are people with jobs that are homeless so it's possible for someone on welfare to be as well. You can buy food and other things as well buy a couple of 40 oz that will get you more then drunk. If that is really a problem then we should give more $$, we sure as hell can afford it. Also if one is addicted they will still find a way to buy alcohol, making it illegal is stupid.

But this argument that because are tax dollars are already wasted what's one more thing to add to the list is a stupid argument imo.
So lets stop wasteful spending on the poor people!

according to the article.

The overwhelming majority of people who drink alcohol are not addicts.

and must be re-assessed by the welfare office every 6 months. If the caseworker feels that the recipient abuses alcohol, the problem is addressed quickly and aggressively.

As for your assumption that there exists a large portion of people receiving assistance who are also addicts, I request that you provide proof of your claim.

last line, but it can be expanded to a whole lot of employees, not just armed forces. I think you have a good argument there.

I listed the Armed forces because that is a job I'm familiar with. Regular folks can't afford to drink like the wild parties so you see in the Army. Here is a picture of my friend's birthday party last year.

The one in the red was his birthday that day. The woman on the right is his wife(not army), the young one with the Heiny wasn't drinking and was taken care of. The one with the Chicago Bulls hat is a civilian and I'm the white person in the back. All the alcohol you see is paid for by tax dollars.

If someone walks into a beer barn with cash - how would you check to see if the cash came from non-assistance funds or from assistance funds?

are those on public assistance going to have to wear some sort of badge? tatoo on forehead?

stupid

Welfare benefits are issued to a card similar to a person's checking or credit card. So I'm assuming that PA is making so that if someone tries to purchase alcohol with one of these cards it will no longer be allowed. However that doesn't preclude someone from withdrawing the money out of an ATM.

Before TARP and TARP II, these robber baron corps were living high off the hog that is the public teat.

And these Rethugicans are harping on poor people buying liquor? Talk about a complete lack of priorities.

I am only partially in favor of such restrictions. In the end, people who want liquor will find a way to have liquor. You can't regulate human behavior with just a card-based restriction. Ever been to a "home alone" party? That liquor came from somewhere.

But I would like to see some evidence that a significant majority of public assistance recipients are actually abusing the benefit cards before I would give my support for such a regulation.

If Mama buys a wine cooler for herself and some diapers for her baby using public assistance, then what is the big deal? Both her needs and her baby's needs are being met. I guess my point here is that if recipients are not dying of alcohol poisoning or neglect or starvation, then where is the need for the regulation?