Liberal Calls Foul when States Restrict EBT Spending on Steaks and Lobster

Written by:

Published on: April 11, 2015

I am sure we have been at the grocery store at the first of the month and seen the people with the carts full of things we cannot afford: steaks, shrimp, lobster, beer, etc. As we may covet the things that they are purchasing, because we have to live within our means, we see them pay with an EBT card. We are outraged that our hard earned money buys them items we have to do without buying. These are things we could have purchased, had we been allowed to keep our money. Well, as many states seek to stop this from happening, liberals are crying foul.

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank writes:

Rick Brattin, a young Republican state representative in Missouri, has come up with an innovative new way to humiliate the poor in his state. Call it the surf-and-turf law.

According to Dana, the sole reason for Brattin coming up with this law is for the humiliation of the poor. So, it seems that Rick was sitting in his office one day. He really wanted to stick it to those poor people and so he said to himself, “How can I stick it to the poor?” As He thought, the heavens opened and it hit him, “We will take away any source of joy these people might have. They cannot have steak or lobster anymore!” This is about as stupid as it gets.

Dana continues:

Brattin has introduced House Bill 813, making it illegal for food-stamp recipients to use their benefits “to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak.”

“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs” with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards, the legislator explained, according to The Post’s Roberto A. Ferdman. “When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.”

Now, what we have here is a little thing called responsibility. If you are eating on state money, then you cannot have a steak dinner. This is not humiliation; it is common sense. The problem is that Dana’s communist/egalitarian presuppositions will not allow him to see that. He thinks that everyone should be equal. But I wonder if he would give away all he has in order to see that happen. See, the fact is, most people like Dana are only good at giving your money away.

Dana then attacks the new Kansas law:

Last week, the Kansas legislature passed House Bill 2258, punishing the poor by limiting their cash withdrawals of welfare benefits to $25 per day and forbidding them to use their benefits “in any retail liquor store, casino, gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor, massage parlor, body piercing parlor, spa, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, vapor cigarette store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility, pari-mutuel facility, or sexually oriented business ... or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted.”

Hurray! Oh! That was meant to be seen as a bad move? Sorry.

Then Dana quips, “The Kansas legislators must be pleased that they have protected their swimming pools from those nasty welfare recipients. But the gratuitous nature of the law becomes obvious when you consider that it also bans all out-of-state spending of welfare dollars — so the inclusion of a cruise-ship ban is redundant in landlocked Kansas.”

I wonder if Dana realizes that all these things are recreations, that it has little to do with these politicians sharing a pool with somebody they find undesirable. The law has more to do with the needy being needy because they are irresponsible than the separation of poor from rich. In fact, if Dana would think about it, I’m sure he would remember that the Kansas legislature is very unlikely to use public pools.  It would also be nice if we could get out of the mindset that makes everything that can be done a right.  Since when has swimming or vacationing become a right?

No, this is a classic case of emoting by a socialist, who wants to pluck our heart strings for the poor. I do feel for those in need, but our giving to the poor should be a hand up out of a temporary situation and not a permanent enabling program. But Dana wants absolute equality. Hopefully, Dana will pick up a history book and realize that all countries that are run, as he wishes ours was, have gone or are going broke. Absolute equality means we are all equally poor.


Don't forget to like on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus