Arnold, in his waning gubernatorial days, has placed a ban which disallows welfare recipients from using state-issued money for things like bingo, psychics, and tattoo parlors. I like Ahnold, and as far as Republicans go I think he might be one of the most thoughtful and moderate, but I'm not sure I agree with this move. It almost seems like a far-Left move, telling people what they are allowed to spend their money on. I mean, yes, it's stupid to spend money you supposedly need on something like a tattoo, but is it right to put strings on charity?
What do you think, my handful of readers?
Weird. And why single-out tattoo parlors btw? And what about church donations? Political donations?
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | November 03, 2010 at 01:49 PM
Also, *if* you're going to direct what that money is spent on, just issue food stamps and provide free healthcare.
One more question: how do they know it's *that* money that's being spent and not money they got from another source? L'argent n'a pas d'odeur.
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | November 03, 2010 at 01:51 PM
Apparently in California welfare recipients are issued a special debit card rather than cash, so the tattoo parlors and such are just prohibited from accepting it. Im betting the government tracks how the money is spent and decided that a disproportionate amount was being spent on tattoos.
Posted by: alejo699 | November 03, 2010 at 02:04 PM
So is it really a black list of places where that card can be used? That seems so weird and legally questionable: aren't these businesses being discriminated against?
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | November 03, 2010 at 02:46 PM
Well, not exactly. I mean, welfare recipients arent barred from spending their own money at those establishments. I guess you could look at it the same as the law preventing you from using food stamps to buy alcohol, but taken a step further. (A step too far, in my opinion.)
Posted by: alejo699 | November 03, 2010 at 02:52 PM
So now money that is forcefully taken from hard-working Americans and given to the indigent is "charity"? I thought charity involved an act of giving of one's own accord. I suppose you may consider it charity on the government's part (IMO it's really income redistribution - but hey, at least they didn't spend it on $1000 toilet seats).
From my perspective, that's MY money they're giving to someone else... and since it's MY money - I feel the right to put whatever restrictions on it's use that I see fit.
From this point forward, all monies taken from me through taxation and re-distributed as welfare must ONLY be spent on tattoos and hard liquor.
Posted by: Crispy | November 04, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Ha! You made me look up the definition of charity, and it turns out that it mainly just means money given to the needy, regardless of intent. I can see your point about seeing it as your money though, but I have to ask, where does that process end up? Can we tell welfare recipients that they can only buy wheat bread and fruits and vegetables? Do we disallow buying gasoline so the indigent must use public transportation?
Dont get me wrong: It annoys me to think someone who isnt working (because they cant or they wont) is spending tax money on tattoos. Its stupid and wasteful. Im just not sure, unless were talking about doing away with welfare entirely, how to keep this from becoming a slippery slope.
Posted by: alejo699 | November 04, 2010 at 10:41 AM
Yeah I don't know the answers... maybe we need to focus on education and overcoming the reasons for poverty vs. just giving people money to spend on tattoos in perpetuity. Giving people healthy food vs. giving them money to spend on Cheetos is probably not a bad idea either... you may not like soylent green at first, but if you're hungry and that's what you've got - by god you'll learn to love it!
There has to be an incentive for people to want to get off of welfare. I know there are people out there that for whatever reason need to be on welfare for an extended period of time and I think we should take care of their basic needs - but if they want to go beyond that, it's up to them...
Posted by: Crispy | November 04, 2010 at 01:44 PM
Well, youll never hear me arguing against improving education. So many problems besides welfare could be solved by having a better-educated populace. Unfortunately I think there are people in power who dont want that to happen....
Posted by: alejo699 | November 04, 2010 at 02:18 PM
This just in... San Francisco has decided to ban putting toys in happy meals:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story
Spuds MacKenzie should team up with Joe Camel and go kick the San Francisco board of supervisors' collective asses...
Posted by: Crispy | November 04, 2010 at 04:53 PM