Posted on 03/20/2015 12:50:43 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Republican senators want to restrict products that may be purchased with Electronic Benefit Transfer cards used in state aid programs for the poor and disabled.
Under Senate Bill 169, recipients would be banned from using the cards or cash drawn on the cards to purchase alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, firearms, or for adult entertainment, gambling, tattooing and body piercing.
A similar bill passed the Senate last year, but was killed by the House which instead studied the issue.
The result, House Bill 219, which restricts using the cards at locations such as smoke shops, tattoo parlors or marijuana dispensaries.
State law already prohibits their use at state liquor stores, gambling establishments and adult entertainment venues.
“A recent audit of the state’s EBT program found that 78 percent of benefit funds were accessed as cash taken out of ATMs, leaving the program open to abuse,” said the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Jeanie Forrester, R-Meredith, at a public hearing before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee Tuesday. “This legislation would tighten the sensible protections on EBT use to ensure that the benefits we’re providing to people in need are being used responsibly.”
But opponents of SB 169 said the House bill is a more reasoned approach to the issue, noting along with Health and Human Services officials, that as written the Senate bill would be nearly impossible to enforce without great expense.
“(The Senate bill) is aiming the gun in the wrong direction and at the wrong people,” said Keith Kuenning, advocacy director for Child and Family Services of NH. “You should not punish 97 percent for the few who do not use the money responsibly.”
Kuenning and others said enforcement would be impossible, unless lawmakers were willing to significantly increase program resources for enforcement, which currently focuses on fraud cases with greater dollars involved.
Health and Human Services officials said there are currently 12,266 households receiving cash assistance through the EBT cards, 74 percent by the elderly poor and disabled, and 26 percent for single-parent households.
Seven people work in the fraud investigation unit, which returns about $1 million a year to state coffers.
Terry Smith, director of the Division of Family Services said other states dedicate more resources to enforcement, but “it is one of the times when social and fiscal policy collide,” noting they spend more for enforcement than they collect for fraudulent use.
A compromise is a software tool that blocks the use of the EBT cards at certain venues like liquor stores, gambling facilities and adult entertainment venues, Smith told the committee.
Committee chair Sen. Andy Sanborn, R-Bedford, said everyone wants to help those who are truly needy, but most would agree need is not a tattoo, alcohol or going to a strip joint.
“You are asking people to give up their own money to help people in need,” he said. “Some of it is (providing people’s needs) and some is not.”
But Elliot Berry of NH Legal Assistance said to implement the Senate bill, the state needs the cooperation of grocery stores, particularly cashiers who will have to ask pointed questions because many on aid programs receive aid from more than EBT card benefits.
“The result will be a cloud of suspicion on anyone who looks poor,” he said. “There is the assumption of irresponsibility.”
The committee did not make an immediate recommendation on the bill.
How about cancelling all forms of unearned welfare tomorrow? Tough love and all that.
One size, except for 'no cash', doesn't fit all.
/johnny
/johnny
A local tv station got a printout of TANF ATM withdrawals made by state of Indiana “clients”.
Vegas, Nevada brothels, Disney (LA and FL), Puerto Rico, etc.
Prohibiting the items listed punishes ZERO percent of those who use the money responsibly.
Some is required... some is not.
/johnny
Recently I was standing in line waiting to pay for gas. A late model Tahoe with the hoopdee wheels pulls up with an adult female and 3 children - all Holder’s people.
They came into the store, filled up their drink cups, grabbed snacks (candy and such) and paid by swiping an EBT card.
/johnny
After 12 months on the program, how about you get no “cash” and have to go to the government food rationing center and pick up your provisions? Which would be sufficient for survival, but maybe unappetizing enough to motivate some to get real jobs and buy their own food. I am thinking, after the 12 months, they each get 3 of Michelle 0bama’s school-lunch-type meals per day.
“There is the assumption of irresponsibility.” .. Pardon me? Assumption?
The problem is based on having food stamps as part of the Agriculture Dept
So it’s supported by the Ag lobby AND all Democrats.
It’s a formidable force.
LBJ was a political genius.
> After 12 months on the program, how about you get no “cash” and have to go to the government food rationing center and pick up your provisions? Which would be sufficient for survival, but maybe unappetizing enough to motivate some to get real jobs and buy their own food. I am thinking, after the 12 months, they each get 3 of Michelle 0bama’s school-lunch-type meals per day.
Just putting them on Moochie’s school lunch diet would make them allwat to seek work alone...
No, you're not asking us to do that. You are forcing us to.
Just like Axlegrease and Plouffy.
AAAHHHH!!! RAYCISS!!!!
“It’s my money, why can’t I spend it the way I want?” /S
I worked in a grocery store back when food stamps were actual paper slips that came in a booklet. The register would give a total for food and a separate total for non-food. This was late 70s.
It is not that complicated to keep control of what is bought with EBT cards and what is not. If they are also giving cash to pay utilities etc., that should be a separate voucher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.