The Oregon Biz Report - Business News from Oregon

Read about accutane journal moderate acne here

Bill bans welfare ATM use at liquor stores, casinos & topless bars

February 6, 2012

Another Silly Idea
By Oregon Economics
California Lutheran University

Louisiana Congressman Charles Boustany has introduced a bill banning withdrawals of welfare funds from ATMs at liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs. Politicians do this sort of thing every now and then. It wasn’t that long ago that California’s legislature, in its own spasm of self-righteous Puritanism, was imposing its own, very similar, controls.
This is a mistake.

Welfare is provided to help maintain a minimum lifestyle for some of our very-low-income households. In the 21st Century America, a minimum lifestyle includes far more than basics to sustain life. It includes cell phones, computers, televisions, and even entertainment.

Apparently, Mr. Boustany objects to some welfare recipients’ choice of entertainment, or he objects to welfare recipients having any entertainment. The latter is ridiculous. People need occasional entertainment.

It is also ridiculous to attempt to control what type of entertainment welfare recipients enjoy. For one thing, the constraint is easily avoided. If you can’t use the ATM at the liquor store, you can always use the one at the gas station next door.

Even if the constraint wasn’t easily avoided, on what basis can we tell welfare recipients that they can spend three to four dollars for a coffee at Starbucks but not the same on a beer at the neighborhood bar? Why is Disneyland OK, but not the casino down the freeway? Where do we stop on this path?

The fact is, our country has a bunch of real problems for Congress to work one. They need to stop wasting time on stuff like this.

Print This Post Print This Post    Email This Post Email This Post

Discuss this article

hapypacy February 6, 2012

Oregon Economics,
Your title certainly speaks directly to your position on the Congressman’s bill. Oregon’s economy is in the tank, as would be expected when taxpayer money is being spent on frugal and irresponsible items. If the welfare recipient is in the liquor store or the casino it is logical that they are there to purchase alcohol and gamble. Both items that I don’t believe are “basic” to their existence, which is what the “safety net” should be about. In our household basics are about what you need, not what you want. We work to pay our taxes and can’t afford luxury items like alcohol or trips to a casino. So why should those taxes I pay into welfare recipients, allow them the luxuries I can’t afford?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer the following question to confirm that you are a real person: *

Top Business News


Top Natural Resource News


Top Faith News


Copyright © 2019, OregonReport. All Rights Reserved. | Terms of Use - Copyright - Legal Policy | Contact Oregon Report

--> --> -->