Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw) Guest Blogger
Over the past few weeks and months, we have read repeatedly about how politicians are upset that the government is doing nothing about jobs. We hear it from the Right and we hear it from the Left, but the unemployment rate is still around 9.0% with many out of work Americans no longer looking for work. With this background, I was incensed when I read about a Minnesota legislative proposal to bar citizens on public aid from having more than $20.00 cash in their pocket at any time!
“Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all. On March 15, Angel Buechner of the Welfare Rights Committee testified in front of the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee on House File 171. Buechner told committee members, “We would like to address the provision that makes it illegal for MFIP [one of Minnesota’s welfare programs] families to withdraw cash from the cash portion of the MFIP grant – and in fact, appears to make it illegal for MFIP families to have any type of money at all in their pockets. How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?” ‘ Crooks and Liars
I know of other states that require that unemployment benefits be deposited into debit card accounts, but the worker can get cash from that card. Minnesota seems to think that $25.00 in one’s pocket is an indication that they are wasting the public aid money! These same politicians have no problem in granting Billions of dollars in tax give aways to the wealthy and to corporations, but God forbid an unemployed person, or a disabled person who might have $30.00 in their pocket!
I wonder why Minnesota and other states are requiring that public aid benefits be deposited into a debit card account? Could it be that the fees banks charge for the use of the debit card has something to do with this legislative nightmare? Maybe if we follow the money, we will find some Minnesota legislators who are receiving contributions from the Bank lobby. How will this Draconian anti-cash proposal be enforced? Will unemployed people be stopped in the street and frisked? Will there be a “Cash Swat Team” roaming the streets of Minnesota searching to find those pesky cash spending poor people? This very same legislation will even make it illegal for the debit card to be used outside of the state of Minnesota. Firedoglake
This attack on the Poor and unemployed is not just limited to Minnesota. We have seen the unemployment benefits attacked in Washington, D.C. and in states like Missouri. Missouri is cutting off the benefits of the unemployed who go beyond the magical deadline of 79 weeks. “Because the Senate failed to act, the extended benefits program will expire March 27, and the final checks will go out April 2. The state Department of Labor estimates 11,700 Missourians were receiving extended benefits in early March, while about 6,500 more were nearing the 79-week cutoff. About 950 unemployed workers become eligible for the extended benefits each week, according to department officials. But Lembke and other fiscal hawks argued that the state should reject the federal money and cut off benefits at 79 weeks to protest government spending and large federal deficits.” McClatchey Here they are cutting off the benefits of people who are desperate and out of work and these politicians claim that they are doing it to “protest” the fiscal policies in Washington!
These are just a couple of the examples of the assault on the poor and unemployed of Minnesota and Missouri. But it is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Maine and all over the country. Even though the Banksters get millions in bonuses and the wealthy get huge tax breaks from the Federal government and many states, the politicians keep talking about fiscal responsibility. Some have even called the long-term unemployed lazy and claim that they are satisfied with staying home and receiving the governmental pittance that is called public aid. Crooks and Liars I just can’t remember a time when being poor and getting laid off from your job because the corporation that you work for has outsourced your job, was considered a heinous crime.
We have politicians in our country who have violated laws against torturing detainees in our War on Terror, but yet they are making millions writing books and going on TV to claim that they did nothing wrong. Why are they allowed to make millions and to not suffer the slings and arrows of a governmental intrusion into their lives, but yet if you lose your job and can’t find work in this Depression, and you have $25.00 in your pocket, you are subject to arrest? Who are these people who decide that the wealthy need every break possible, but that the poor are to be mistrusted?
I would like to paraphrase a question that was asked of Senator Joseph McCarthy in a Congressional hearing in the 1950’s and direct it to the legislators who are behind this affront against the poor and middle class. ”Have you no Shame”? Some of these same politicians claim that this is a Christian country. If that is true, I think Christ is crying tears of blood today.
Buckeye,
There is a link to the proposed bill in Anon’s post at 2:51pm. Blouise also provided a portion of it in her response. The proposed bill is real and scary at the same time.
OS and AY,
Amway!? Wow. The DeVoss family is helping Walker give every low income student a chance at a private school. So if I understand the concept, the state will pay or subsidize the cost of every low income student to go to a private school. Is that a parochial school or a private, for profit school that one of Walker’s and/or DeVos’s friends owns and profits from? This is a guess, but I am guessing it will be to a charter school or a private school that Walker or DeVos or a “friend” has an interest in! So who is better off if and when the profit comes into the education process in Wisconsin?
AFC is controlled by Betsy DeVos the sister of Eric Prince aka Blackwater and the wife of Dick DeVos…none other than the owner of a non publicly traded company known as American Way…. You might know it better as AmWay…..
According to this piece, the “Koch-roaches” are handing the baton to a new AstroTurf group. This one looks rather malignant.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/19/957919/-The-Koch-Roaches-are-Handing-the-WI-Baton-to-a-New-Astro-Turf-Clan
I see the comment thread seems to have a couple of trolls trying to derail discussion with irrelevant comments and nitpicking. When they send their professional trolls, you know you are drawing blood.
Mike S.
Still-liberal-at-83 should be writing for the Onion – or maybe he is. I hope I’m still that with-it at 83!
Check this out. If true whoopee!
http://quinnell.us/sspb/?p=11263
spouse
rafflaw
I’m having the same trouble anon is in finding a reputable source. Everything seems to link back to Crooks and Liars which links to Fight Back News which seems to be a people’s socialist website. Nothing in the Minnesota congress about this that I can find. Maybe my search abilities are just not up to it, but this isn’t showing up in the newpapers anywhere.
I had this problem on another blog where everything on a story about Barbara Boxer linked back to a mudraker in the San Francisco area.
While I don’t doubt the story could be true, it would be nice to have a reputable source confirm it.
Eons ago when my spouce and I were both in college and a baby was on the way, we applied for food stamps. We could get food but no paper products with the stamps and were required to buy a particular amount depending on our family size. We had to stop receiving the food stamps so we could use our limited money for food AND paper products – so no, I don’t doubt this bureaucratic flim flam at all.
Well said Blouise. This bill is a wolf in sheeps clothing. While it does say that the 90 days can be shortened in a medical emergency, it does not reflect other emergencies. And you are corect that there is a monetary inducement for vendors to turn in people in order to “cash” in. The language in this bill drips of arrogance, in my opinion. Gotta go baby sit the Grandchildren now! Hooray!
“I know this post was put up by a guest blogger, but I’ll be judging this site’s integrity based on whether a _lawblogger_ can read a proposed statute and issue an update/correction.” (JimM47)
The judgement of JimM47 cometh!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
I read the “H.F. No. 171, 1st Engrossment – 87th Legislative Session (2011-2012) Posted on Mar 17, 2011” and found this nifty little bit:
“Subd. 5. Fraud reports. Retailers who report to the commissioner substantiated 2.16 incidents of EBT card fraud shall receive five percent of any recovered funds.” “Quick catch that guy before he spends that $20 … or else I won’t get my $1.”
One no longer qualifies if having been poor for only a month … one must now be poor for three months … how long does it take to starve to death in the dead of winter in Minnesota?
Also, there are no provisions denying banks from charging “fees” on card usage or even setting limits on the amount they may charge. Banks can take as much as they want out of the account through usage fees but holders can only take $20 a month in cash …
Maybe it’s my turn to judge JimM47
Jim M 47,
Maybe it is is just me, but when I have been on unemployment here in Illinois, the state was able to wire the funds directly into my current checking account with no limitation on how it is spent. You can opt for a debit card, but its use is not restricted like this proposed bill suggests. This EBT process is different and separate from the money in the food stamp program.
If I read your post correctly, you seem to think that having to open up a separate debit account just for the unemployment benefits is not a big deal. Why would the state require this? I can understand it for those who do not have a checking acount, but the fees on the government debit card programs add up. Especially when you are on a slim budget to begin with. Since the bill prohibits the holder from withdrawing more than $20.00 in cash in a month, the unemployed person has to use the card everywhere and it does have a stigma attached to it and more fees may be involved for its use.
It appears from the bill that the Legislators of Minnesota seem to think that the users of the program are abusing it by buying alcohol and cigarettes and those items are strictly prohibited and that could be the reason why the out of state use is prohibited. Where is the evidence of this misuse? Not allowing the card to be used out of state may be a unconstitutional, but that is another discussion.
While you are correct that the recipient could have more than $20.00 in their pockets, they cannot obtain more than $20.00 a month with the card as I stated above. Why wouldn’t the legislators want them to have more than $20.00 in cash per month? As I discuss below, they seem to be “concerned” that the money will be used to buy tobacco and alcohol. No mention of it being used at any gambling casinos which to my mind might be a better precaution. I apologize for my inartful language on that issue, but I will not retract the body of the article. And yes, since you asked, I can read a proposed statute.
The entire proposed legislation seems to be based on the theory that people on unemployment can’t be trusted to utilize their benefits as they seem fit and not use it all up to buy alcohol and cigarettes. The proposed legislation actually includes language to set up a committee of legislators and bankers and vendors for the purpose of making sure the card isn’t used to purchase those outlawed products.
Jim,
I have no doubt in my mind that this proposed legislation is designed to prevent the unemployed from using their benefits as they see fit. The legislators seem to be convinced or want the public to be convinced that there is a big problem with how the funds are being used and that restrictions are necessary to help out these people who can’t be trusted. Being unemployed doesn’t mean you are unable to budget your bills. Being unemployed is already a stressful situation and this proposed bill could add to the stress. Why arent’ the tax credits given to the wealthy and to corporations restricted to be used only for investing in the company infrastructure and for creating jobs?
The proposed bill does restrict the amount per month to a total of $20.00 in cash that can be withdrawn from an atm or received back as change from a vendor. I apologize for the long and winded reply, but I wanted to address your questions.
Thanks for your comments.
What is going on?
I know quite a few people who have benefits placed on a debit card (unemployment-child support) and I can understand the need to keep costs low by using a card system. The problem lies in the companies that they use. The company in my state is just that, a company, not a bank. They have fees for everything and only mail one flier at the time they mail the card with the list of charges and have the list nowhere on their site. The fees are for things as small as checking your balance. There are even fees for when your card is declined. You are allowed one withdraw and then the rest are charged. I have even talked to a woman who was issued a card that she never received, and yet was charged 15 dollars for a replacement. It seems like a the state gave the company the go ahead to try to take as much money from the needy (or the divorced) as they can. And there is jack one can do about it!
A couple of states that I am aware of allow some cash to be taken off of the Bridge Card for incidentals that are not “usually” available at the part of the city that they live in….
In one instance a guy was seen pulling money out at a casino….yes a casino….
“I was incensed when I read about a Minnesota legislative proposal to bar citizens on public aid from having more than $20.00 cash in their pocket at any time!”
This seems to be quite an inflammatory way of stating that the debit cards issued to beneficiaries must be used for traceable electronic transactions with merchants, except for $20 of the benefits, which may be taken out in cash (and potentially used for non-approved benefits).
The proposal is no less restrictive than the famous “stamp” system of earlier years. But the advantage, of course, is 1) to merchants, who can use their current credit network setup, rather than having to deal with a government agency; 2) to the state, which can spend less processing the claims; and 3) to beneficiaries who can use a form of payment that looks innocuously like the payment system everyone else is using. The disadvantage, in the eyes of some, is that while it was difficult to sell foodstamps for cash to pay for non-approved items, like alcohol or cigarettes, the debit-card system has made it easy to withdraw cash as part of transactions.
So, indeed, it would be perfectly legal for a beneficiary of public aid to have more than $20 in their pocket. You can’t be searched on suspicion of having more than $20. You aren’t subject to arrest for having more than $20. But, as a matter of logistics, that $20 would _probably_ not have arrived in that pocket via state-issued EBT card.
I know this post was put up by a guest blogger, but I’ll be judging this site’s integrity based on whether a _lawblogger_ can read a proposed statute and issue an update/correction.
This seems completely crazy, but is it actually true?
The FDL link goes to the the CL link which goes to “www.fightbacknews.org/2011/3/15/minnesota-republicans-say-poor-people-money-should-be-outlaws” which doesn’t seem to link to anything authoritative on this.
Googling this phrase “Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.”
yields a combination to Web 2.0 SEO engines and some Web 2.0 social network aggregators(both of which should just curl up and die.)
And yes, it is true, here is the bill itself:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0171.1.html&session=ls87
But it’s weird, and odd, and just plain wrong that no one could link to anything authoritative, and that google is so fooled by the Web 2.0 social miscreants.
It’s not even clear what the Welfare Rights Committee is. Google them, and you come across a blog that seems to represent them but lists no actual members, which I guess is fine, but seems odd for an organization willing to testify in public over public issues.
This blogger seems to be the most help: blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/03/minnesota_gop_w.php
Also, I ain’t blind yet, but they way Professor Turley presents the comments in a very small and very gray font is truly annoying!
The idea is to stop those receiving public aid from buying drugs and booze, to control how they spend.
From Huffington Post (3/18/2011)
Rising Food Prices Intensify Poverty, Hunger In U.S. And World
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/rising-food-prices-hunger_n_837664.html
Excerpt:
“Global food prices continue to rise,” begins a recent report by the World Bank.
Between October 2010 and January 2011, the Bank’s food price index increased by 15 percent, and the global prices of wheat, maize, sugar and edible oils have all increased sharply.
As a result, since June 2010,
“there has been a net increase in extreme poverty of about 44 million people in low- and middle-income countries.”
America isn’t immune from the trend.
According to Gallup Polls conducted between 2006 and 2008, 16 percent of people in the Americas have gone hungry due to finances. And the trend of rising food prices is going to push more and more families into that category.
The U.S. Labor Department released its consumer price index survey this week. It reports that the price of grains such as corn, wheat and soybeans has roughly doubled since last summer, due mainly to bad harvests and also the use of corn for ethanol. Wholesale food prices rose by 3.9 percent in February — the sharpest increase in more than 36 years. Meat and dairy prices also rose, as did fresh vegetable prices, leaping by nearly 50 percent in February. And the Department predicted that “food costs are likely to keep climbing for most of this year.”
The effect of rising food prices can be seen in Lee County, Alabama, where more than 3,000 families accessed the Community Market food bank during the past year, as reported by CNN.
Elaine,
My head exploded so violently, that I couldn’t spell explode correctly the first time!
Elaine,
This story made my head exploed. I just forwarded it to my sister-in-law in Minnesota to let her know what her legislators are doing to the unemployed!
rafflaw,
Those legislators you wrote of have no shame–and they have no empathy for people who are less fortunate than they. This is defintely NOT the America that I want.