I nearly laughed out loud yesterday at the gym when the scroll across the bottom of the news screen informed me that the House was voting on a bill to prevent welfare money from being spent in casinos and strip clubs. Not because the idea was amusing - it's quite appalling that it's even possible for people to use welfare funds for such purposes - but because some representatives were against the measure!
Clearly, I'm just an ignorant middle class rube, but I can't understand how any reasonable individual finds it wrong to insist that money intended for the essential support of a family - food, clothing, shelter - be spent for those legitimate purposes instead of squandered at a strip club, casino or liquor store.
In the wake of several nation-wide exposes on the rampant nature of the problem and America's burgeoning debt, it seems self-explanatory to institute simple, logical changes (which cost nothing to put into effect, incidentally) to ensure that money intended for the welfare of the struggling be put to good use.
Ironically, the same people who scream that this is just another racially motivated bashing of the lower class are the very same ones who would be railing against the government for neglect and dereliction of duty if it were a member of government spending money intended for poor children on strippers and booze.
(Was anyone else annoyed that the talking heads were all about "dead beat dads" but no one said a peep about the women with five kids all by different fathers, living solely on welfare who somehow still have enough money to keep their acrylic finger- and toenails flawless filled and airbrushed?)
How long do you suppose most welfare recipients would stay unemployed and on benefits if they had to figure out what to do with a brick of processed cheese product and a bag of dry rice instead of taking their shiny cash card to Wal-Mart for a government funded shopping spree every month? (Talk about the mother of all reality shows material!)
I don't know about you, but I'd like to find out!