additional commentary by Rep. Timothy Horrigan; January 14, 2014 & July 26, 2014
This was not my bill and I was against it. It stemmed from Bill O'Brien's summer 2012 crusade against EBT card cheats:
|
HB 1213-FN – AS INTRODUCED 2014 SESSION 14-2155 05/03 HOUSE BILL 1213-FN AN ACT prohibiting the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. SPONSORS: Rep. Sapareto, Rock 6; Rep. Leishman, Hills 24; Rep. W. O'Brien, Hills 5 COMMITTEE: Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs ANALYSIS This bill prohibits the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. |
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 14-2155 05/03 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fourteen AN ACT prohibiting the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 1 Prohibited Use of Electronic Benefit Transfer Cards; Alcohol and Tobacco. Amend RSA 167:7-b, I to read as follows: I.
Any person receiving public assistance is prohibited from using
electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards or cash obtained with EBT
cards [ (a) Suspension of cash assistance benefits for that person for 2 pay periods for the first offense. (b) Suspension of cash assistance benefits for that person for 4 pay periods for the second offense. (c) Suspension of cash assistance benefits for that person for 6 pay periods for the third and subsequent offense. 2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2015.
|
|
LBAO 14-2155 11/04/13 HB 1213-FN - FISCAL NOTE AN ACT prohibiting the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. FISCAL IMPACT: The Department Health and Human Services states this bill, as introduced, will have an indeterminable fiscal impact on state revenue and expenditures, and may increase local expenditures by an indeterminable amount. This bill will have no fiscal impact on county and local revenues, or county expenditures. METHODOLOGY: The Department of Health and Human Services states this bill prohibits the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards or cash obtained from an EBT card. The Department anticipates there will be some reduction in state expenditures due to recipients having their benefits suspended after an administrative determination of prohibited use of an EBT card. The Department states the bill does not provide an appropriation for enforcement. The Department indicates the Special Investigation Unit's ability to monitor the transactions would be limited, and based on available resources and existing technology, assumes monitoring would be limited to reported telephone and Web-based complaints. In addition, the Department states there will be an increase in local expenditures if individuals whose benefits are suspended apply for local welfare assistance. An exact fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time. The New Hampshire Municipal Association states this bill would prohibit the use of electronic benefit cards to buy alcohol or tobacco products. The Association states it cannot identify any fiscal impact on municipal revenues or expenditures. |
I came to the hearing on January 14, 2014, and presented the following written testimony, which was similar to my oral testimony:
|
Testimony Against HOUSE BILL 1213-FN
AN ACT prohibiting the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products with electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards.
Rep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford 6); January 14, 2014 |
|
I am not just opposed to HB-1213, which adds some additional prohibitions to RSA 167:7-b. I am opposed to RSA 167:7-b in general.
This bill takes a bad statute and makes it even worse. The rationale behind this bill is that recipients of public assistance should only use their benefits for necessities. One of the cosponsors has even said that recipients are "breaking faith with the taxpayers of New Hampshire" when they buy anything other than the barest necessities of life.
Ironically, this bill targets two of the most heavily taxed commodities in the state. Our state tobacco tax is $1.78 per pack. With the exception of beer, our state government sells all alcoholic beverages sold within our borders, either wholesale or retail, and we sell those beverages for a very tidy profit. In 2012, the Liquor Commission made a profit of $140.5 million. Beer is subject to a beer tax of 30 cents a gallon.
The existing law already forbids EBT card users from getting cash from ATMs located at state liquor stores. The law has a blanket prohibition against using any ATM located at "Off-premises retail licensees that exclusively or primarily sell beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages." And for good measure it also has a specific prohibition against using ATMs at "State liquor stores and agency liquor stores established by or under the authority of the New Hampshire liquor commission."
Ironically, the Liquor Commission is actively seeking to place ATMs in its retail outlets. The commission's last available annual report (2012) says that 25 of 77 stores had ATMs, and the state made about $25,000 in transactions fees.
Public assistance recipients get very small amounts of money, and most of them lead unenviable lives. Most of them should probably not be smoking or drinking, although in moderation alcohol and even tobacco can actually be an effective treatment for certain diseases. We taxpayers should allow recipients to spend their tiny cash benefits however they please, even if they make choices which not all of us agree with.
RSA 167 contains several "welfare-to-work" provisions. Even though RSA 167-7b forbids recipients from spending their money in certain types of establishments— e.g., liquor stores, strip clubs and casinos— there is no law preventing them from working in such places. |
I hesitate to mention this other bill because my opposition to it has sent a certain amount of national ridicule my way, but I also spoke out against a parallel bill, SB 203 "AN ACT relative to permissible uses of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards." This bill contained language about guns and ammo, so I ended up being in favor of poor people buying guns with welfare dollars, something no one (not even myself) is too enthused about. The sponsors of this bill were all 13 Republican State Senators plus 4 relatively sensible Republican State Represenatives.
The first version of the bill contained one section (Section 3 to be precise), which was one of the most unworkable ideas I have seen in six years as a legislator, which is saying a lot. Section 3 would have limited ATM withdrawals to $25 a day: not $40, not even $20: $25. (That part of the bill was evidently drafted by someone who had never used— or even watched someone else using— an ATM.) Moreover, welfare recipients were also supposed to get receipts for each and every purchase, and then hold onto the receipts until their next eligibility review. There was no detail about who would do whatever it was which needed to be done with the accumulated receipts; and the bill even failed to include the usual boilerplate language which formally grants decision-making authority to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. The Senate wisely to chose to get rid of Section 3 before sending it to the House.
|
SB 203 – AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE 03/13/14 0877s 2014 SESSION 14-2598 05/06 SENATE BILL 203 AN ACT relative to permissible uses of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. SPONSORS: Sen. Forrester, Dist 2; Sen. Carson, Dist 14; Sen. Bradley, Dist 3; Sen. Morse, Dist 22; Sen. Boutin, Dist 16; Sen. Cataldo, Dist 6; Sen. Odell, Dist 8; Sen. Rausch, Dist 19; Sen. Reagan, Dist 17; Sen. Stiles, Dist 24; Rep. Ladd, Graf 4; Rep. Vadney, Belk 2; Rep. G. Chandler, Carr 1; Rep. LeBrun, Hills 32 COMMITTEE: Finance ANALYSIS This bill expands restrictions on the use of EBT cards. The bill also directs the department of health and human services to report on the adoption and implementation of restrictions on the use of EBT cards. |
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 14-2598 05/06 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fourteen AN ACT relative to permissible uses of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 1 Public Assistance; Prohibited Use of Electronic Benefit Transfer Cards. Amend RSA 167:7-b, I to read as follows: I. Any person receiving public assistance is prohibited from using electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards or cash obtained with EBT cards for the purpose of purchasing any product or participating in any activities in any location listed in paragraph I-a or II. Any person receiving public assistance who uses an EBT card in violation of paragraph I-a or II shall be subject to the following penalties: (a) Suspension of cash assistance benefits for that person for 2 pay periods for the first offense. (b) Suspension of cash assistance benefits for that person for 4 pay periods for the second offense. (c) Suspension of cash assistance benefits for that person for 6 pay periods for the third and subsequent offense. I-a. Any person who receives public assistance is prohibited from using an EBT card or cash obtained with an EBT card to gamble or to purchase tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, lottery tickets, firearms, or adult entertainment. 2 New Subparagraph; Prohibited Use of Electronic Benefit Transfer Card; Tattoos and Body Piercing. Amend RSA 167:7-b, II by inserting after subparagraph (d) the following new subparagraph: (e) Business establishments primarily engaged in the practice of body piercing, branding, or tattooing. 3 New Paragraph; Restrictions on the Use of Cash Assistance. Amend RSA 167:7-b by inserting after paragraph IV the following new paragraph: V. Cash withdrawals made with an EBT card shall be limited to $25 per transaction. Recipients shall retain receipts for purchases made with such funds and shall submit the receipts to the department as part of the renewal process for continued program eligibility. 4 New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services; Restrictions on the Use of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Cards; Report Required. On or before October 1, 2014, the department of health and human services shall report to the fiscal committee of the general court, on the adoption and implementation of restrictions on the use of cash assistance. The report shall outline the goals of cash assistance, review applicable state and federal regulations governing restrictions on the use of cash assistance, summarize the department's findings regarding enforcement of RSA 167:7-b, and make recommendations relative to the regulation of cash assistance programs. The report shall include an education plan for recipients regarding the requirements of RSA 167:7-b and the permissible and prohibited use of cash assistance. 5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage. |
On February 4, 2014, I came in and delivered the following testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, which politely listened to me with little if any comment:
Testimony
against SB 203
|
|
I am not just opposed to SB 203, which adds some additional prohibitions to RSA 167:7-b, a statute added to the law books last summer as part of the budget trailer bill HB 2. I am opposed to that statute in general, even though I did vote for the conference report on HB 2.
This bill takes a bad statute and makes it even worse. It is very similar to a House bill, HB 1213, although it adds two new elements to that bill.
Ironically, this bill targets two of the most heavily taxed commodities in the state. Our state tobacco tax is $1.78 per pack. With the exception of beer, our state government sells all alcoholic beverages sold within our borders, either wholesale or retail, and we sell those beverages for a very tidy profit. In 2012, the Liquor Commission made a profit of $140.5 million. Beer is subject to a beer tax of 30 cents a gallon.
The underlying statute, RSA 167, contains several "welfare-to-work" provisions. Even though RSA 167-7b already forbids recipients from spending their money in certain types of establishments— e.g., liquor stores, strip clubs and casinos— there is no law preventing these people from working in such places. Nor is there any law forbidding recipients from working in gun shops or tattoo parlors. |
The Senate got rid of Section 3 and passed the bill as amended 20-3 on March 13, 2014. A month later, on Tax Day, April 15, 2014 it was heard by the House Heath & Human Services Committee. The hearing was little livelier than the Senate hearing: some of the Republicans asked some angry questions, but the mood was generally pretty mellow. I prepared the following written testimony:
Testimony
against SB 203
|
|
I am not just opposed to SB 203, which adds some additional prohibitions to RSA 167:7-b, a statute added to the law books last summer as part of the budget trailer bill HB 2. I am opposed to that statute in general, even though I did vote for the conference report on HB 2.
This bill takes a bad statute and makes it even worse. It adds two new elements to that statute.
The underlying statute, RSA 167, contains several "welfare-to-work" provisions. Even though RSA 167-7b already forbids recipients from spending their money in certain types of establishments— e.g., liquor stores, strip clubs and casinos— there is no law preventing these people from working in such places while continuing to be part of the "welfare-to-work" programs. Nor is there any law forbidding recipients from working in gun shops or tattoo parlors. Needless to say, there are also no laws forbidding owners of those establishments from taking advantage of "welfare-to-work" credits. |
I should have left well enough alone, but I decided to prepare a floor speech for the May 7th session day. The bill came up (with a majority committee motion of Interim Study) right before a delayed lunch break. My colleagues were eager to dispose of this bill, and my speech was mostly ignored at the time. It only became controversial later. I only delivered about 60% of my prepared remarks:
Floor
Speech on SB 203
|
|
The motion on the floor is Interim Study for SB 203. This does have the effect of killing the bill, so I do support it, although there are other motions I would support more whole-heartedly.
I am not one of those who believes that we need to take draconian measures to stop quote-unquote "Those People" from spending cash benefits on things which I might not necessarily approve of. I think cash benefits recipients are adults who should be empowered to make their own decisions. They may need counseling and guidance on how to spend their very limited funds as efficiently as possible, but the punitive approach in SB 203 and other recent bills is insulting and even counterproductive. The four programs this bill would effect are Aid to the Permanently Disabled, Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Needy Blind and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (better known as "TANF.") This bill seems to have been inspired by a May 2012 dispute in Peterborough between a convenience store cashier and the family of a young mentally disabled man who evidently would been on Aid to the Permanently Disabled if he was on any public assistance program at all. However, if fair to say that TANF is by far the most controversial, and the largest, of those four programs. TANF pays very small benefits: the maximum for a family of 3 is $675/month and the average benefit is $215/month.
SB 203 would add some additional prohibitions to RSA 167:7-b, which was added to the law books last summer as part of the budget trailer bill HB 2. At the time, we reps were told that those provisions were needed to comply with federal law. The new law we passed last summer only restricts funds dispensed with EBT cards, which are essentially no different from the debit cards everyone in this body carries in his or her wallet. Clients who have bank accounts can use "EFT" instead, which just means the funds are direct deposited.
This bill would add two new elements to RSA 167:7-b, even though the corresponding federal law has not changed significantly.
SB 203 would also restrict the use of EBT cash benefits to purchase alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, firearms, body piercing/tattooing and/or adult entertainment.
RSA 167:7-b is part of RSA 167. RSA 167 contains several "welfare-to-work" provisions. TANF recipients in particular are required to work (or go to school) at least 30 hours a week. Even though RSA 167:7-b already forbids recipients from spending their money in certain types of establishments— e.g., liquor stores, strip clubs and casinos— there is no law preventing these people from working in such places while continuing to be part of the "welfare-to-work" programs. Nor are there any laws forbidding recipients from working in gun shops or tattoo parlors. Needless to say, there are also no laws forbidding owners of those establishments from taking advantage of "welfare-to-work" tax credits. The unconstitutional
firearms ban is reason enough to kill this bill, but that is just
one of many reasons why this bill should not be passed. I am
confident that an objective interim study of this issue would show
why this bill is totally unnecessary. Thank you Madame Speaker! |
See Also:
|
|
