Gerry Clinchy
06-16-2012, 08:10 AM
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1691748078001/
NJ is considering not allowing welfare funds/food stamp funds to be used for cigarettes, alcohol, casino trips, etc. Evidently, there is a bill before Congress that would attach such regulation to receiving Fed funds for these programs. One of the panel members mentioned that this is already in place in California & Washington State (maybe also NY? it wasn't clear).
With the use of "credit cards" for payments v. "paper" this should be very easy to implement. For example, such cards could be programmed to automatically be rejected at casinos and strip clubs. Grocery store registers are programmed each week to compute the sale prices by SKU #s. It should be easy for this programming to adapt to rejecting SKUs of welfare-prohibited items ... like cigarettes, alcohol, or even Mayor Bloomberg's favorite, sugar drinks.
And, guess what? This restriction was put in there by Obama!
Since this kind of abuse of public funds is a bi-partisan issue, one panel member suggests that no member of Congress should be dumb enough to vote against such a bill. (He may overestimate their intelligence?)
The figure used for fraud/abuse in the program is 3.7%. However that # is based on the ones that have been caught. It is likely that the true figures are at least somewhat higher.
If the argument is made that the problem is a small one, then it is hard to argue that stopping it is a big deal! Right? The only people who will "hurt" if you stop this abuse are the actual abusers. Those who need & use such funds for the intended purpose are not impacted at all. If we are willing to tax tobacco and sugar to discourage use among the general population, why are we willing to subsidize the same "evils" with taxpayer funds?
Even eliminating a million here and a million there of abuse means that more funds are then available for those who truly need assistance. So, if the whole point is helping those in need, why wouldn't we want to stop abuse/fraud?
Dictating how spending one's money is not a function of govt ... but if the money is not actually the fruit of these persons' labor (i.e. it is taxpayer money), then there is a basis for dictating how it is spent. All govt grants have designated purposes. This one should be no different?
I think it again highlights that when so much money is available through the complex systems in place by govt (at all levels), there is a lot of potential for fraud/abuse. We are seeing that daily ... with GSA, with the Des Moines school district, with Medicare fraud. When we are used to talking in terms of billions of dollars, we come to think of a million dollars chump change. It becomes easy to forget how millions eventually add up to billions.
NJ is considering not allowing welfare funds/food stamp funds to be used for cigarettes, alcohol, casino trips, etc. Evidently, there is a bill before Congress that would attach such regulation to receiving Fed funds for these programs. One of the panel members mentioned that this is already in place in California & Washington State (maybe also NY? it wasn't clear).
With the use of "credit cards" for payments v. "paper" this should be very easy to implement. For example, such cards could be programmed to automatically be rejected at casinos and strip clubs. Grocery store registers are programmed each week to compute the sale prices by SKU #s. It should be easy for this programming to adapt to rejecting SKUs of welfare-prohibited items ... like cigarettes, alcohol, or even Mayor Bloomberg's favorite, sugar drinks.
And, guess what? This restriction was put in there by Obama!
Since this kind of abuse of public funds is a bi-partisan issue, one panel member suggests that no member of Congress should be dumb enough to vote against such a bill. (He may overestimate their intelligence?)
The figure used for fraud/abuse in the program is 3.7%. However that # is based on the ones that have been caught. It is likely that the true figures are at least somewhat higher.
If the argument is made that the problem is a small one, then it is hard to argue that stopping it is a big deal! Right? The only people who will "hurt" if you stop this abuse are the actual abusers. Those who need & use such funds for the intended purpose are not impacted at all. If we are willing to tax tobacco and sugar to discourage use among the general population, why are we willing to subsidize the same "evils" with taxpayer funds?
Even eliminating a million here and a million there of abuse means that more funds are then available for those who truly need assistance. So, if the whole point is helping those in need, why wouldn't we want to stop abuse/fraud?
Dictating how spending one's money is not a function of govt ... but if the money is not actually the fruit of these persons' labor (i.e. it is taxpayer money), then there is a basis for dictating how it is spent. All govt grants have designated purposes. This one should be no different?
I think it again highlights that when so much money is available through the complex systems in place by govt (at all levels), there is a lot of potential for fraud/abuse. We are seeing that daily ... with GSA, with the Des Moines school district, with Medicare fraud. When we are used to talking in terms of billions of dollars, we come to think of a million dollars chump change. It becomes easy to forget how millions eventually add up to billions.