http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localdtw/ ... ood-stamps

Another reminder of why mindless rule worshiping statism is stupid. Apparently you need a waiver from the federal government to cut someone off food stamps that has won a 2 million dollar lottery.

two million doesn't go as far as it used to

One hopes that Palin's comment was tongue in cheek with so many other "deserving" recipients such as this one on food stamps.

tongue firmly in cheek

I'd support two million going a lot less far than it does

Seems to me that it's not that the rules are followed that's the problem, but that the rules are wrong. Change it so that anyone with assets over a certain level is not eligible and job done...

danivon wrote:Seems to me that it's not that the rules are followed that's the problem, but that the rules are wrong. Change it so that anyone with assets over a certain level is not eligible and job done...

Sounds like a plan that could have wide ranging effects. Rather than disagreeing with the rules and disregarding them, the rules should actually be changed? How utterly amazing! I agree with Danivon! If a rule is bad, change it. Not just with welfare, but all laws. Think of the wide scope of change that could be enacted... [see WI and DOMA/Walker interpretation]

Well, exactly. It may be that my proposal has unintended consequences, or needs refinement, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Perhaps it may need some people to check the level of applicants' assets.

Mind you, on the Walker thing, the argument is about what the rules are, having been recently changed (2006 for the constitutional amendment and 2009 for the civil union legislation), and reconciling one with the other. I think that presents the drawback that simply changing the rules can present. Lesson? Such a change needs to be pretty unambiguous, or if there is ambiguity, it needs to be resolved properly.