Addicted public charges would be comical if they weren’t so tragic.
Stories from “This is True” by Randy Cassingham, with his “taglines:”
“SO MANY TAX DOLLARS, SO LITTLE TIME: A woman went to a grocery store in Grand Rapids, MI, and purchased 42 bottles and cans of soda. She charged them to her Bridge Card, a federally funded debit card that’s managed by the state for use by public assistance recipients. She then took her purchase directly to the store’s automated redemption machine, and fed all 42 containers, unopened, into the machine. Inside, they all exploded as they were crushed, spreading soda and debris inside the machine and all over the surrounding floor. She then pocketed $4.20 for the returns, and left. Store manager Steve Holland said he called the state, and was told the customer did not violate Bridge Card rules. (JW/WOOD-TV) …Next she’ll be back for a cash refund on already-chewed gum.”
Do you think taxpayers might benefit by requiring proof of sobriety in those on the dole? Let’s take a look at a similar story:
“SO MANY TAX DOLLARS, SO LITTLE TIME II: A Winslow, Maine, woman was indicted on charges of theft by deception and aggravated forgery for fraudulently obtaining food stamps. According to the indictment, Leah L. Wright, 34, falsely stated she was pregnant — for 40 months straight — and forged statements from physicians and state agencies to verify her condition. Assistant Attorney General Leane Robbin said Wright had received about $4,000 in benefits. Two notes from separate agencies show one pregnancy following another by one day. (JW/Waterville Morning Sentinel) …Someone in the welfare department needs a refresher course in sex education.”
Although we lack gold-standard proof, the evidence strongly points to addiction in both women as by far the best explanation for their disgusting behaviors (after all, they are either exceedingly vile or they are addicts, which would explain the acts and for which we logically give them the benefit of the doubt). Consider the possibility that the woman in the next story could have easily committed the acts in the first two:
“MOTHER OF THE YEAR RUNNER-UP: Chicago, Ill., police were summoned to check out an apparently drunk woman, holding her 3-month-old baby ‘as if she had a football under her armpit.’ Officers say Jamie L. Riley, 27, was indeed drunk. Riley told them she had been drinking vodka, ‘celebrating with my husband because DCFS dropped their investigation.’ The city’s Department of Children and Family Services confirmed they had been investigating the woman for child neglect. Riley was charged with endangering the health and life of a child and disorderly conduct. The infant, who was injured in the incident, was taken to a hospital — and into protective custody — and the DCFS has opened a new investigation. (RC/Chicago Sun-Times) …The telling part isn’t the second investigation, but that the first one was closed out.”
Sometimes I’m not sure who commits the greatest amount of enabling: friends, family or government. You have the right to be an idiot and enable your friend or family member to death. But stop putting taxpayers on the hook by coercing them into enabling.
(Stories and taglines from “This is True,” copyright 2011 by Randy Cassingham, used with permission. If you haven’t already subscribed to his newsletter—the free one at least, or the paid one I get, with twice the stories—I highly recommend it: www.ThisIsTrue.com.)