Should the government prohibit welfare recipients from drinking a beer or purchasing the HBO channel? That’s what Arizona State Rep. Frank Antenori, a Tucson Republican, proposes to do for those on public assistance. The bill, if approved and signed into law, eliminates welfare benefits for individuals if found:
- Purchasing or consuming alcohol or tobacco;
- With a cell phone – unless it is their only phone;
- With a cell phone contract that includes more than basic service;
- Purchasing a car worth more than $5,000;
- Purchasing a TV worth more than $300;
- Or with a cable television package that includes more than basic service.
Who would disagree that people on public assistance have a better shot to improve their financial situation if their money is not spent on alcohol or other luxuries? Furthermore, most taxpayers probably resent involuntarily funding such a lifestyle.
And that appears to be Rep. Antenori’s reason for introducing these restrictions. “If you don’t have enough money to buy your own food to exist for your own sustenance, and you need some other hardworking taxpayer that’s out there and working and paying taxes to subsidize your food, then you shouldn’t have the luxury, at the expense of some other taxpayer, to go out and enjoy the niceties in life,” he explained.
Lawmakers have not yet worked out the enforcement framework but Rep. Antenori suggested that witnesses could dial an 800 number to report any violations.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat opposed to the legislation, has called the measure a ‘Nanny State’ bill and says it is ‘anti-freedom’. In this sense, Rep. Sinema makes a good point. Owning a decent car, having a cell phone and drinking a beer are all legal activities. As private citizens, we have to question how much we really want our government to punish an otherwise normal and legal behavior.
Keep in mind that this bill makes no mention of lottery tickets, video games, or designer clothing. These items are not necessities and could be considered equally wasteful of taxpayer dollars.
The larger point is that no matter what the government tries to do, it’s not going to force wise decisions. We all know where the road paved with good intentions will take us.
And for ideology consistency, consider the repercussions of the federal government’s heavy-handed influence on how private companies used TARP bailout funds. Most conservatives were against bailouts in the first place. But it added insult to injury when lawmakers got too involved in the corporate boardroom.
Do we remember Congress’ threat to impose a 90 percent tax rate on the AIG taxpayer-funded bonuses? Or President Obama warning corporate executives about going to Las Vegas? A free market capitalist is suspicious of excessive government involvement and believes that corporate governance should be left to private shareholders.
If the government is going to bail out private industry or individuals in need of public assistance, we will be better served if we limit Uncle Sam’s involvement to signing the check. We should support smart welfare reform. But we cannot expect to curtail the size of government if we allow it to punish legal, if perhaps distasteful, behavior.
Photo Credit: Antenori.com
Neil Rosekrans is a founder and partner of StateBrief.com. He has been a guest political commentator for the Arizona Law Channel, NBC's Sunday Square Off and The Terry Gilberg Show on KFYI. Neil earned his undergraduate degree from Cornell University and earned his MBA and Masters in Public Policy, with an emphasis in International Relations, from Pepperdine University.
Neil and his wife, Beth, live in Scottsdale, Arizona. 
I believe Frank achived exactly what he intended to do. Lawmakers and the public are talking about it. We have a growing welfare state and we need to get control of it before we end up like CA. The welfare rules need to be changed to push people towards self sustenance.
I do agree that the current welfare system is not working but I don’t think we should tell people how they can spend their income. The majority of people who receive welfare truly need the assistance and prohibiting them from spending it on legal items is government going way too far! Enforcing this bill by citizens calling an 800 number is ridiculous.
Isn’t it amazing how far-right idealouges like Antenori think it’s OK for government to get into your business when it’s about something they don’t like, but scream bloody murder if the govenment wants to regulate something they do like? And his idea for enforcement comes straight out of the nazi, totalitatian “turn in your neighbors and parents” playbook. Looks like Antenori wants to put us on the slippery slope to unfettered government regulation of all aspects of our lives.
This is interesting. I can see where he’s coming from. I can’t tell you how often I’ve seen people in poverty spending their tax returns or whatever form of government aid and buying a new tv or rims for their car, etc. Instead, they should be putting it away or saving for the children’s college.
I agree with Rep. Sinema. I also think the bill is dealing with the symptom of a great social problem which is poverty’s cyclical nature. In my book there’s only one thing that can break that cycle: an education. Nothing can solve our state and nation’s problem like a quality k-12 education, college matriculation, and graduating. Good luck with all that when you’re slashing funding for education left and right.
Not only is this a huge invasion of one’s privacy, but also a colossal waste of time and resources. While some likely abuse the system, is it really worth the cost of hiring more government employees to police our citizens that are purchasing items that are completely legal? Let’s find a better use for our resources such as investing in education.