Quite obviously, you know way more than I do about the details of the Kansas program(s), so I will defer to you on that.
If you are on cash-only status with Kansas Gas Service, that means they will NOT take any form of payment over the phone; you need to pay in person at one of their authorized payment locations. Some of those locations are kiosks that will accept debit cards; some are in-person (usually convenience stores, grocery stores, or the like) and are allowed to set what forms of payment they will accept.
I know a gentleman who had his troubles with KGS: he bounced a check, and then scheduled online bill-pay and gave the wrong (garbled) bank account number. He’ll be in cash-only status for another couple of months, and his local payment location takes Federal Reserve notes, thankyouverymuch. Sure, they could be less dickish and start accepting debit cards, but their services = their rules, and their rules are no plastic.
Now people who are in good standing with the utility have a lot more options, but poor people are particularly likely not be in good standing.
I’ll go one further…what’s a lingerie shop? Victoria’s Secret sells perfectly sensible bras, and I hear they have some pretty good sales (I can’t shop there myself). Women need bras, and bras wear out sometimes and need to be replaced.
Is Walmart a lingerie shop? They sell bras. They also sell naughty nighties, condoms, vibrating cock rings and flavored lube.
It’s well known that banks pay for all of the free checking accounts that middle class folks use and love by creatively charging lots of overdraft fees to poorer customers who are unable (because of income flow or general incompetence) to maintain a positive balance. Obama successful pushed for laws to curtail such predatory overdraft fees, but the business model remains. I’m able to get free checking because some schlub is paying for it in overdraft fees.
I’ve no reason to believe that welfare recipients can or should operate under the same business model.
In the same vein, I would very much like it if my bank went even further to curtail this business model. In exchange for the peace of mind of knowing that my checking account wasn’t being funded by some poor single mom who’s paycheck and rent check happened to hit her account in the wrong order, I’d be willing to pay ATM transaction fees or (gasp) a monthly checking account fee, just like we all used to.
I’m not sure if D’Anconia’s credit union is operating under this “more ATM fees is more fair” principle, but I think we should all keep in mind where banks get their money and how free checking accounts are really funded.
Obviously not. But if the nearest WalMart is out of state, and Brownback signs this, it will still look like welfare fraud.
What if the bra is purchased from eBay? That sounds to me highly likely to be an illegal purchase “at points of sale outside the state of Kansas.”
Do I seriously think that Kansas investigators are going to start looking for welfare recipients who paid a dollar or two to get their child a couple hours of fun in a community center pool, or who bought a used vacuum cleaner found on eBay? No. What I do think will happen is this: Welfare recipients unlucky enough to have snoopy resentful neighbors who notice a lottery ticket being purchased, or a package with Amazon markings, will be turned in :mad:
The list of forbidden items is so long that even a welfare recipient who prides himself on adherence to law will have an impossible time memorizing all the purchases that are verboten. This violates basic principles of fairness.
Its about being tough. Its about implying that its the fault of welfare bums that Kansas has multi-billion dollar fiscal problems. Its worked before, no reason for them not to trot it out again. Sure, its low, mean and nasty, but Jesus is for Sunday, and this is Thursday.
I agree, but it makes me wonder what’s available in “lingerie stores” in Kansas that isn’t available (cheaply made, of course) at Walmart. Why single them out?
Here’s a list of state restrictions on TANF funds. It was done before the Kansas law, if you want to get an idea of what states ban what.
their website says they take debit cards which is what we’re discussing.
If you want to start a discussion on the consequences of bouncing checks then knock yourself out.
Those are mostly restrictions on use of state-provided cards, rather than money.
If the card automatically declines gambling purchases, I personally think that’s a good idea. The biggest problem, for me, with the passed, but not yet signed, Kansas statute is with provisions that most recipients will accidentally violate, turning people, who today are innocent, into lawbreakers who may, or may not, be lucky enough to get away with it.
Jail? Probably not. But once you have a record for welfare fraud, a lot of jobs are no longer available. In some states, you can get something like that expunged. But it sets up a big barrier for transitioning to work, just what the bill’s proponents are supposedly for. The whole thing feels like a Kafkaesque setup to make more work for lawyers.
Aside from what has been discussed in the previous pages, the prohibitions on the use of welfare dollars to fund cruises and other extravagant or wasteful purchases are just a solution in search of a problem. While I don’t doubt that someone, somewhere, has done this ( and if they did, Fox News found them and did a segment on them ), it just isn’t common enough to rise to a systemic problem.
The real reason behind these laws is the typical rabble-rousing Tea Party crap – It’s just another way to get the Tea Party base all riled up about all the welfare queens bleeding the state dry by feasting on filet mignon and lobster while getting massaged by a fortune teller.
Let them think that THAT’S why Kansas’s economy is in the crapper - not because the state is handing out gratuitous tax cuts to “job creators” who decide to hang on to the extra money instead of creating jobs because they don’t need any new workers because no one can afford to buy anything.
What part of “on cash-only status” did you miss in my earlier posts?
If you’ve had trouble paying your utility bills (and, shockingly enough, a lot of poor people have), you can end up with various forms of restriction. With this particular utility company, one of the restrictions can be that you need to pay your bill in person at one of the company’s authorized payment locations.
The gentleman I mentioned routinely has $500-600 monthly winter natural gas bills (it’s not a big house, but it’s old and not well insulated, with an old and not very efficient furnace). The federal poverty level in Kansas is $972.50/mo. for a single-person household. If you are living on $970 and paying $600 just for heat, something has to give, and problems paying the utility company are not incredibly rare. (Kansas pays LIEAP [Low Income Energy Assistance Program] monies to qualifying beneficiaries in March, which won’t stop utility issues when the bills shoot up starting in November.)
Difficulty paying utility bills mid-winter is one reason why it is illegal for companies to cut off heat during the winter no matter how much the customer owes. Well, OK, that gets you through the FIRST winter, but come summer the utility companies can and will cut off your power and won’t restore it until the prior bill is paid in full… which means you’re screwed next fall unless you move and can then convince the utilities to hook you up there, which is problematic at best and usually involves some fraud.
There are various programs to folks out with this sort of situation, but out of control heating bills are and have been a problem for poor people since pretty much forever.
Not to hijack unduly, but I find it extremely interesting that Massachusetts is the most restrictive state for TANF and EBT card purchases.
In effect, I’m pretty sure that’s what the Kansas law is too. There’s no way to enforce it otherwise. When you go to the movie theater, and pay with cash, they don’t audit you to find out where the cash comes from before selling you the ticket. Here’s the actual text (which is part of the larger bill)
It seems to me that the only way to read that that’s feasible is that it prohibits POS transactions using an EBT card in those establishments or for those products (and probably cash withdrawal from ATMs in those establishments).
Yes. One thing that Massachusetts puts on its list that the Kansas legislature did not: Guns.
On the other hand: It’s pretty clear, once you read the laws, that Kansas is talking about any purchase, and Massachusetts is just about direct card use. See Section 5Ib:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter18/Section5I
Also, as indicated in your link, the punishment to the Massachusetts welfare recipient is distinct from welfare fraud penalties and isn’t life altering. The stronger punishment goes against a store owner who lets the welfare recipient make the purchase.
I agree. But I would just be careful to note that on the long list of forbidden Kansas purchases, the reasonable (although unnecessary) ones of cruise ships and strip joints are the only ones that look truly wasteful.
Jewelry stores? In Philadelphia, some have quite reasonably priced items, either in part of the store, or because they specialize in costume jewelry. Is KC Kansas so different?
Swimming pools? You mean, on a YMCA sliding scale?
Lottery ticket? Cheap bottle of wine? You mean, small Christmas gifts are now welfare fraud?
Theme park? You mean a subsidized school trip for a child?
Collegiate sporting event? You mean a dollar admission fee at a community college basketball game?
Tobacco? You mean a 100 percent cold-turkey quit smoking requirement the moment your no-life-insurance husband dies suddenly, making you a near-penniless widow?
Out of state purchases? You mean, taking public transit to a low-copay dental clinic in Kansas City MO, or paying the transit fare coming home from visiting a sick relative?
Adding cruise ships to the list was a brilliant, literally headline-grabbing, PR maneuver deflecting attention from all the wildly unreasonable restrictions.
I read it. It says cash. That’s not card only.
As for enforcement, except for murder, the great majority of law-breaking will always go unpunished. In this case, I expect that most of the enforcement will come from busy-bodies who resent a neighbor on welfare, and turn them in.
But law enforcement may also start prosecutions on its own. If Kansas law endorsement thinks a welfare recipient engaged in traditional welfare fraud, but they can’t prove it, they always can bust the recipient for having made an out-of-state purchase. Just look in their trash for an on-line merchant shipping box.
Making it so easy to prove almost all people, in a broad class, are criminals, is an invitation to law enforcement abuses.
It says “TANF cash assistance”, which is a specific program. One of the things the bill does is update the older name “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” to the newer name “TANF” And, for instance, the bill specifically doesn’t just refer to cash payments, as in the section quoted, where it says “No TANF cash assistance shall be used for purchases at points of sale outside the state of Kansas.”
That’s forbidding TANF cash assistance from being used at POS outside the state. I really think you’re misinterpreting the law here.
Besides, the statement "But law enforcement may also start prosecutions on its own. If Kansas law endorsement thinks a welfare recipient engaged in traditional welfare fraud, but they can’t prove it, they always can bust the recipient for having made an out-of-state purchase. Just look in their trash for an on-line merchant shipping box. " isn’t true. Even under your interpretation of the law, it’s not illegal for a TANF recipient to make an out of state purchase, just for a TANF recipient to make an out of state purchase with TANF funds.
TANF recipients work; they have sources of income besides TANF. Even according to your interpretation, law enforcement would have to prove not only that they made the purchase, but that they used TANF money to do so.
clearly you’ve never seen how prevalent welfare abuse is. When I lost my job I did odd jobs to keep money flowing in. So I worked on rental properties for various landlords. What I saw were people who had multiple TV’s, cable, empty booze bottles, empty takeout containers, and all manner of wasteful spending. I also worked part time at a grocery store. It was easy to tell when the welfare payments came out. The recipients did in fact buy luxury items instead of the basics needed.
Those rabble you refer to are people from both parties who are tired of watching their tax money wasted. Everybody wants to help but when that money is fraudulently spent and it’s contributing to ever increasing amounts of public debt then it means there will be less money available in the future to help people.
Gosh, so really, its the* conservatives* who totally care about the poors, which they show with stern lectures on self-reliance and personal responsibility!