It's not every day that lawmakers in Washington discuss strip clubs -- at least not on the legislative floor.
Associated Press
House Republicans don't want Uncle Sam paying for any more lap dances.
A bill that GOP leaders are bringing to the House floor Wednesday would require states to prevent welfare recipients from accessing or spending their benefits at strip clubs, casinos and liquor stores.
Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-La.) is leading the charge on the issue, insisting that benefits under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are being distributed through state-issued debit cards, and those cards are then being used to purchase illicit goods and services.
Boustany called the problem "pretty rampant," though the evidence to support this is elusive, and his bill would slash TANF aid to states that failed to implement the new federal regulations. (Conservative Republicans hate it when Washington imposes new mandates on states, except when they don't.)
The measure, called the "Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act," passed easily yesterday, on a 395 to 27 vote.
Arguably more interesting, though, is why House Republicans decided to pursue this in the first place.
Boustany's claims notwithstanding, there's little evidence pointing to widespread misuse of funds. The principal piece of evidence was this two-year-old Los Angeles Times article, which reported that some California casinos accepted TANF debit cards, but 0.4% of welfare funds went to gambling, and 0.001% went to "adult entertainment."
Within days of the article's publication, California changed its standards for use of TANF funds and imposed the restrictions Congress is now seeking.
With that in mind, why are GOP lawmakers in Washington bothering with this? Melissa Boteach had a terrific report, exploring this question in detail.
With unemployment at 8.5 percent and more than one in three Americans struggling to get by on low incomes, do conservatives really believe that taxpayer dollars used for strip clubs, liquor stores, or casinos is a pressing national crisis? For most House conservatives, the answer is probably no. Do they see the political value of forcing such a vote in an election year? You bet!
Putting politics above policy in this crass way is unfortunate and cynical. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program has experienced benefit cuts of more than 20 percent, after adjusting for inflation, even as the Great Recession and the slow economic recovery have caused elevated levels of unemployment and poverty. Many low-income workers on TANF are unable to access the child care they need to make work possible and ultimately end up spending nearly half their income on care for their children. Low-wage workers are constantly facing the threat of a layoff because more than 80 percent lack access to a single paid sick day to take care of themselves, a sick kid, or an elderly relative.
And the big vote on TANF is about strip clubs?
This vote represents yet another instance in the creeping trend of conservatives to demonize the poor -- and then threaten anyone who votes against the legislation with supporting "welfare spending" for strip club admissions. The tactic enables conservatives to imply that tough economic circumstances somehow make poor people delinquent and criminally inclined.
The point isn't to defend misuse of welfare funds, which is obviously inappropriate. Rather, the point is GOP lawmakers are picking a fight over "welfare" in an election year, tackling a problem that doesn't appear to exist. Yesterday wasn't an example of responsible legislating; it was a cheap stunt.
Leave a Comment:
"Excuse me sir before I can allow you in the club I am required by law to ask you are you receiving any sort of Public Assistance" Ha Ha How do you enforce a law like that ?
Rep. Boustany should be on one of those hillbilly hand fishing reality shows taped in a Louisiana bayou, not sitting as a member of the United States House of Representatives. What is it about the GOP that it attracts so many knuckleheads, dim-bulbs and mulyuks to its ranks - and somehow manages to get these people elected?
Me thinks an audit of the dear Rep.'s public funded accounts is in order. I wouldn't want any duly elected official using taxpaying monies to get his very own lap dance!
Boustany should man-up! -Kevo
someone on TANF withdraws funds from a bank atm on his way to the casino....
Damn good law! Just need to add to it no tax write offs for conventions and 'business meetings' held in Las Vegas & Atlantic City!
Agreed. Money meant to make sure someone has resources to meet basic needs should not be used for excess. Nor should tax loopholes be allowed to continue for anyone.
Please dear god, somebody add an amendment making it illegal for lobbyist to claim deductions for all of the alcohol, strippers and hookers they pay for to "educate" our representatives on the righteousness of a beneficial, to the lobbyists, regulation.
This is yet another in a long list of examples of Conservatives demonizing the poor. It's despicable.
This is what the republican led congress considers their jobs plan?What a waste of taxpayers hard earned money.This is exactly why the do nothing congress is rated at 11% favorability in the polls.I hope they pay the price in the 2012 elections.
yes. how dare they not allow the poor to use welfare cards in the casinos.
Good for the Republicans---solving another problem that doesn't actually exist.
Those pesky real problems are just a little too big to deal with at the moment.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/25/local/la-me-welfare-casinos-20100625
1.8 million spent in california casinos in just 8 months
We don't know where the money was spent, but we do know that about 1% of the money given for the cards was w/drawn at casino ATMs and other ATMs. It looks like the problem was strict rules were put into place as to what could be purchased on the card, but strict rules were not put into place as to what the cash w/drawls could be. In and of itself w/drawing from a casino or liquor store isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if the money is then being turned around and used on gambling or liquor purchases that certainly is a waste. I am all in favor for their being stricter provisions being put into place to stop waste, fraud, and abuse. I am curious though how stricter provisions can be put into place w/o fundamentally violating the intention of the program? Perhaps have the ATMs registered at casinos or liquor stores not accept these types of cards? But even that wouldn't necessarily help because you could simply w/draw at a bank and then walk across the street and spend money on alcohol. The reason why they do the cash w/drawl is because things that people might actually need, but that they lack the funds to pay for (like utilities, diapers, baby clothes, school supplies) aren't directly covered by most or all assistance programs. The idea is to allow them to take cash out so they can spend it on necessities that fall outside the normal parameters of currently existing programs.
And we are all supposed to be surprised how numerous members of Congress put both the interests of their campaign contributors as well as their own personal financial gain ahead of doing what is best for the country? Nothing new there. These bums are actually getting elected believing they are on Capitol Hill just to make themselves rich and court favor with major corporations and other special interests. America is being run into the ground because Congress simply doesn't care.As long as they get a few millions, then leave, they're thrilled. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
May this idiot be made to follow a TANF family for one month. Eating exactly what they eat,(he has to pay for his). Spending no more money on bills than they do. And see how little money is left for a casino or a strip club. Where are the jobs bills that Boehner promised all of us when he and his merry band of thieves promised in 2010 to get elected?? NOT ONE has even been proposed!!
Exactly, Mary. I think this is just another distraction bill so they don't have to do anything the President wants to get done.
This is so easy: Let the republicans have their way, no welfare money can be spent at strip clubs. it doesn't effect anyone, so who cares?
BUT make it so business can't expense any "entertainment" or "meals" money spent at strip clubs either. Taxpayers shouldn't have to support corporate write-offs on tittie bars, right?
What would Republicans even say to that? Democrats are stupid sometimes, this is such a golden goose.
Let me see if I get this right---
If a person is on public assistance they have no right to have dignity or self determination ? I have been seeing legislation like this coming out of the woodwork. Restricting purchases is a big trend. Cigs, coffee, soda, alcohol, lottery... somewhere, in America, those items (and many more) are in or have been in legislation. I love the argument that someone on Food Stamps shouldn't be able to buy a coffee and donut at Starbucks. Really ?? It might not be a cost-effective purchase, but it IS the person's choice. Perhaps it is their big treat to themselves after a week of job hunting.
If you take away everything that makes life worth living (and that is up to the individual, not society) you will be left with a person who is becoming a zombie and who will soon lose any ambition to re-enter society and become productive.
Even poor folks need perks... things to feel good about...
Does anyone out there really grasp how depressing it is to be chronically poor ?? I don't suggest you try it... (I'm not THAT mean and angry...)
Restrict the rights of the welfare recipients to buy anything other than food and guns and then republicans will be happy.
It is a nutritional program. How about we restrict welfare recipients to buy only nutritional food? If you don't like that, then you can pay higher taxes (or start paying taxes) for these people to use your money to go to strip clubs and pay for prostitutes.
Contessa you are aware that even the person using food stamps is still paying taxes, right?
The person using food stamps is not paying federal income tax, nor does 47% of the population. That number needs to come way down if Obamacare is instituted. Even Euro socialist countries have a much lower proportion of people that pay no federal income tax. Time for most people to join in supporting our bloated government.
Everyone pays taxes, just not necessarily income tax. Welfare programs are not directly funded by income taxes they are directly funded by the payroll tax and a few other wage-based taxes. How income tax is relevant to this discussion is confusing at best.
If you want to truly understand the bad reasoning behind all of these "no [fill in the blank] for welfare recipients" arguments, simply do the following: replace the word "welfare" with "mortgage interest deduction". As any economist will tell you, money is fungible; once it goes into a bank account, you cannot separate the "good" money from the "bad" money. So, ask yourself, would all of the citizens claiming mortgage interest deductions on their taxes this year be willing to: pee in a cup (for the requisite drug test); disclose whether they have ever been in a strip club; stop buying sugary sodas (a proposal by mayor Bloomberg of New York City); or suffer any of the other arbitrary intrusions into their privacy, big and small, that conservatives seem perfectly willing to impose on the poor, just because the financial support from welfare is treated differently than the hundreds of other forms of government assistance given daily? Even better, would American farmers getting agriculture subsidies through the Farm Bill surrender their liberty to such intrusions? I'm beginning to think it's time for liberals like me to become conservative, because these former conservatives have forgotten what the word means.
Sure, it's a nice idea to make sure that welfare assistance is actually going towards what it is meant for: food, bills, housing, etc...but I imagine the people behind this bill would not want the microscope of personal finances to be turned around on them. Taxpayer dollars pay their entire salary and we expect their time to be spent actually passing and writing laws that help benefit their communities. I would love to see a study that determined how much of their time was spent with that versus cultural witchhunts like this.
There are people that will take money and spend it all - whether they have a job or not - on things they probably shouldn't. But that is not for other people to decide. As to spending public assistance in the casinos - which this bill seems focused on - is quite one - sided. Casinos can also be an investment opportunity to those who know their limits, know which machines will and won't payout within a few tries and when to call it quits. In other words, often taking that measly public payout and investing in the slots can, when done right, double that measly public assistance into real, instant cash for rent, gas, groceries or even that well deserved stop at Starbucks. Maybe this worries lawmakers more because winning just below the tax radar allows winners not to declare the "profit" and thus avoid paying taxes on it while using it to live.
Lot of Dems supporting this total waste of time as well.
i live near akron, and all the strip clubs and internet cafes are in poor white sections of the region....nice way for the gop to attack people that vote for them
That is because unlike you, the GOP looks at curtailing welfare fraud and doesn't look at the color of the people using welfare. Liberals are the most racist people. They just cannot get past color.
You know, if you took a public poll, you people would be inthe great minority, just like the handful of liberal dems that opposed this bill. Common sense dictacts this bill.
Put the ad populum aside and explain how this bill will stop the funds from being spent on such non-necessary items? I agree that we shouldn't be funding strip clubs or liquor stores w/ food stamps, but I am not sure how this bill is going to actually accomplish that goal. It certainly will stop people from w/drawing from those locations, but that data states that where people w/drew money and spent money were not the same. So how will this work?
The same way we prevent people under 18 from buying liquor or gambling or entering strip clubs.
So you're not proposing that we have to create a new type of identification specifically for welfare recipients???
You swipe your card and then select the amount and the amount you can take out for the food stamp card is limited to the cash balance it has which is only a few hundred dollars max. People were taking out the cash money at ATMs and then using that cash to purchase whatever they wanted which was sort've the whole point of the cash w/drawl program. The problem was they took money out at liquor stores and casinos, although apparently that's not where they spent the money according to the information you linked. So at max all that tells us is it's easier to access a casino or liquor store ATM than other ATMs. This doesn't explain how we're going to stop people from using specific types of ATMs or how we're going to prevent that money, once it's w/drawn, from being spent at unnecessary places like casinos and liquor stores. If you can offer clarity please do.
Blahhh that should read: So you're now proposing instead of So you're not proposing
I find it disturbing that democrats played along, they should boycott this bull.
Where are the jobs Mr Boehner?
This is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. Dems should call their bluff and force them to produce evidence of the problem. Republicans will back down and look like fools.
Wasn't there quite a scandal last year over republicon party entertainment, spending large amounts of money on strip clubs and lap dancing. The TANF recipients lack the funds for such and are more concerned with the necessities of life. I'm so sick of these condescending, judgmental republicans demonizing the poor. More cheap stunts from petty legislators who care only for the preformance. Let's all applaud David Vitter now.
It will be a real challenge to get into an Alabama casino. First you have to prove citizenship, then you have to prove you are not on public assistance. What's next? Religious affiliation, as in Virginia? Access given to Baptists only?
If these righteous Congresspeople had ever been down on their luck, they would know that the local casino is often a fine place to get a balanced buffet meal for relatively little money. The casino often helps out with rides to and from the neighborhood. But some pompous stuffed shirt will surely put an end to that.
If the argument they are using is that it is tax payer money that these people are squandering, then shouldn't that apply to all taxpayer money? Why not target all organizations/programs that use taxpayer money for such purposes? Doesn't feel like a real issue to me, but if you are going to go for it, don't go half hog, go all the way. Or would that impede the Congress themselves?