Kansas attacked for stunning success in reducing welfare dependency

Progress on the war on poverty is always measured by how much the government is spending. The more, the better, say liberals. But a more sensible way to think about it is that the fewer people on welfare, the more people who are supporting themselves and not living off the hard working taxpayer. From that realistic perspective Kansas governor Sam Brownback has had a tremendous success, greatly reducing enrollment in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program:

During Brownback’s first term in office, the state’s TANF enrollment declined by half from 38,900 in 2011 to 17,600 in 2014.

Rapid decline in TANF participation was hailed by O’Donnell and other Republicans as evidence of the administration’s anti-poverty strategies had changed lives, while Democrats asserted that drop reflected strident eligibility regulations that accomplished little beyond purging people from TANF rolls.

“We pat ourselves on the back that our TANF rolls have gone down exponentially and we say it’s because all those people are now working. We don’t know that and I’m guessing its not the truth,” said Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka.

So this Democrat's argument is that she doesn't know if the poor are being hurt, but she's guessing they are.

Kelly said weaving regulations limiting access to federally funded programs into state law was a strategy to make it more difficult for future governors to unravel Brownback’s vision of welfare.

Very good! I find I like Sam Brownback! He's fundamentally transforming Kansas!

And now the Kansas legislature is considering a new law which will restrict the TANF program even further.

The bill set for a final Senate vote Thursday also would expand upon the Republican governor’s actions by capping at 36 months lifetime benefits under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, limiting to $25 the amount a person could withdraw daily from TANF accounts with an ATM and creating a special photograph identification card for food stamp beneficiaries.

These measures make tremendous sense. For a program whose name is "temporary" there have to be some limits on it, and 3 years is very generous. The $25 withdrawal limit prevents recipients from spending money improperly on big ticket items. The photo ID can help prevent fraud, although Demorats will undoubtedly say it is racist, somehow. But wait, there's more:

No TANF cash aid could be spent out-of-state or anywhere for expenditures in a liquor store, casino, jewelry store, tattoo or body piercing parlor, spa, massage parlor, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility or sexually oriented retail business.

Have you wondered where this list came from? Do you think legislators just made it up randomly? Obviously, they went through a list of the most common abuses of the program and incorporated it into the prohibited list. It is astounding that taxpayer money would be used on cruise ships or gambling or for "sexually oriented retail businsses", whatever those are.

If an individual committed TANF fraud, child-care fraud or was found guilty of theft after July 1, all adults in that family unit would be permanently ineligible for TANF assistance. Persons convicted of two felonies involving controlled substances would be disqualified for life from receiving food stamps.

“Now what we want to do is take the same mean-spirited policies that we’ve implemented over the years and we want to codify them,” Kelly said. “I can only assume that the motive behind this is truly malice of intent.”

For Democrats, trying to cut any waste or fraud in government spending is malice. For me, however, malice has a decidedly different definition: income redistribution of my money to others without my consent, with determined indifference to how these virtuous recipients of my taxpayer money use it. And if a taxpayer questions how his or her money is being used, the taxpayer is the one accused of being malicious, while the Democrat doing the redistributing is the virtuous one.

Good work, Sam Brownback! If you weren't squishy on amnesty, you'd make a good presidential candidate! Check out the link above--back in 2007 he voted both yes and no for amnesty in one vote, and, he says, proudly so.

I have a long memory for these sort of things.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

Progress on the war on poverty is always measured by how much the government is spending. The more, the better, say liberals. But a more sensible way to think about it is that the fewer people on welfare, the more people who are supporting themselves and not living off the hard working taxpayer. From that realistic perspective Kansas governor Sam Brownback has had a tremendous success, greatly reducing enrollment in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program:

During Brownback’s first term in office, the state’s TANF enrollment declined by half from 38,900 in 2011 to 17,600 in 2014.

Rapid decline in TANF participation was hailed by O’Donnell and other Republicans as evidence of the administration’s anti-poverty strategies had changed lives, while Democrats asserted that drop reflected strident eligibility regulations that accomplished little beyond purging people from TANF rolls.

“We pat ourselves on the back that our TANF rolls have gone down exponentially and we say it’s because all those people are now working. We don’t know that and I’m guessing its not the truth,” said Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka.

So this Democrat's argument is that she doesn't know if the poor are being hurt, but she's guessing they are.

Kelly said weaving regulations limiting access to federally funded programs into state law was a strategy to make it more difficult for future governors to unravel Brownback’s vision of welfare.

Very good! I find I like Sam Brownback! He's fundamentally transforming Kansas!

And now the Kansas legislature is considering a new law which will restrict the TANF program even further.

The bill set for a final Senate vote Thursday also would expand upon the Republican governor’s actions by capping at 36 months lifetime benefits under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, limiting to $25 the amount a person could withdraw daily from TANF accounts with an ATM and creating a special photograph identification card for food stamp beneficiaries.

These measures make tremendous sense. For a program whose name is "temporary" there have to be some limits on it, and 3 years is very generous. The $25 withdrawal limit prevents recipients from spending money improperly on big ticket items. The photo ID can help prevent fraud, although Demorats will undoubtedly say it is racist, somehow. But wait, there's more:

No TANF cash aid could be spent out-of-state or anywhere for expenditures in a liquor store, casino, jewelry store, tattoo or body piercing parlor, spa, massage parlor, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility or sexually oriented retail business.

Have you wondered where this list came from? Do you think legislators just made it up randomly? Obviously, they went through a list of the most common abuses of the program and incorporated it into the prohibited list. It is astounding that taxpayer money would be used on cruise ships or gambling or for "sexually oriented retail businsses", whatever those are.

If an individual committed TANF fraud, child-care fraud or was found guilty of theft after July 1, all adults in that family unit would be permanently ineligible for TANF assistance. Persons convicted of two felonies involving controlled substances would be disqualified for life from receiving food stamps.

“Now what we want to do is take the same mean-spirited policies that we’ve implemented over the years and we want to codify them,” Kelly said. “I can only assume that the motive behind this is truly malice of intent.”

For Democrats, trying to cut any waste or fraud in government spending is malice. For me, however, malice has a decidedly different definition: income redistribution of my money to others without my consent, with determined indifference to how these virtuous recipients of my taxpayer money use it. And if a taxpayer questions how his or her money is being used, the taxpayer is the one accused of being malicious, while the Democrat doing the redistributing is the virtuous one.

Good work, Sam Brownback! If you weren't squishy on amnesty, you'd make a good presidential candidate! Check out the link above--back in 2007 he voted both yes and no for amnesty in one vote, and, he says, proudly so.

I have a long memory for these sort of things.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.