This sounds great, until you remember that we’re talking about people who are likely:
- Inclined to violence (rioting and looting are not peaceful activities)
- Unable or unwilling to do productive work (otherwise they wouldn’t be on welfare, even when defined at its broadest as anything means tested we pay people)
Sure, you can remove their eligibility to welfare. But that would cause them to become more needy and more likely to commit more violent crimes. If we’re taking them down that route, why not take them directly to crime academy (jail)?
There might be a third order effect of discouraging future riots and looters who stop to think about the long term effects of their actions. But I doubt the looter set and the “people with the foresight to stop and think” set, have much of an intersection.
I can’t say it is factually wrong that some military veterans are on food stamps. For one thing, the majority of veterans are over fifty five, and Social Security isn’t exactly a generous program. For another, entry level military salaries aren’t supposed to support a family. An E-1, barely out of basic training, makes about $1,500. Then again, this is entry level. How many eighteen year olds start families already?
The reason I call this factually wrong and lazy is that this particular veteran works for the Marine Corp Scholarship Foundation in business development. That is typically a job that pays well enough not to need food stamps. Occupy Democrats couldn’t even bother to find a real example. That speaks to the honesty of the organization.
Yes, Indiana is cutting out 65,000 from food stamps, but this is based on the work requirement (able bodied people of working age need to be at least looking for a job). This isn’t some kind of arbitrary demand, but a normal part of the law that was waived during some really bad economic years.
h/t Courtney Ballard