Nanny State Kansas Republicans limit Debit Card withdrawals on Poor.

I see, Republicans aren't punishing the poor, they're just trying to help.

Funny thing, you never see Republicans pushing for more accountability and results from CEO's and big business interests seeking tax cuts and state handouts. In fact just the opposite if they're getting money from Scott Walker's WEDC.

Pee in a cup drug tests, limits on the kind of food served while wining and dining corporate lobbyist and politicians for taxpayer money?

I'm mystified. Heck, we've already discovered companies are not the "job creators" they said they were, especially here in Wisconsin.

But republicans have a way of spreading their one-size-fits-all nanny state punishments on the poor, as you'll see below in another cruel hot new attack.

So if drug testing, public service work or nanny state junk food lists aren't enough to dump on struggling Americans, how about the following:

AP: People are outraged about a Kansas law that critics are calling a 'tax on the poor.' Kansas is taking a storm of criticism over its new policy strictly limiting ATM withdrawals for welfare recipients to $25 a day. Additionally, most ATMs do not carry $5 bills. This fact effectively changes the policy to a $20 limit and would potentially result in poor Kansans paying even more withdrawal fees to get the same amount of money.

The change was placed in stark reality by a Thursday article in The Washington Post titled "Kansas has found the ultimate way to punish the poor." As The Post notes, it would "force beneficiaries to make more frequent trips to the ATM to withdraw money … Since there's a fee for every withdrawal, the limit means that some families will get substantially less money." Elizabeth Lower-Basch, the director at Center for Law and Social Policy, or CLASP, said the law amounts to a "tax on the poor."

But it saves the state money, all the while teaching lazy no good American citizens a lesson in frugality:

Experts have suggested the welfare policy change could result in a $100 million cut in money Kansas receives from the federal government … the Social Security Act requires welfare recipients to "have adequate access to their cash assistance" while facing "minimal fees or charges."

Though Brownback and legislative leaders are quickly backpedaling in the face of the potential loss of federal funds, various observers have widely expressed outrage … People who read The Post article reacted with comments like "disturbing," "amazing," and expletives: Some of the state's leading editorial boards have previously blasted the ATM limit.

"Not only are many of the state’s new welfare regulations condescending, the limit on cash withdrawals may violate federal law — potentially endangering $102 million in federal funding. That’s what can happen when lawmakers ram through legislation without proper vetting, and based on ugly stereotypes," The Wichita Eagle opined Wednesday. "The best course is to revoke the entire law."

The Kansas City Star slammed the legislation on Monday as an "embarrassment" to the state. "If nothing else, Brownback’s staff should have observed that ATMs generally don’t allow withdrawals in $5 increments. The state law effectively imposes a $20 limit," the paper's editorial board wrote. "That rushed process, the sign of amateurs at work, has been happening a lot lately in Topeka. And — voila! — the result is bad legislation."

What's encouraging is that we're seeing any kind of blowback at all. 

Republicans want to ban junk food for needy, but defend to death junk food for school lunches.

No wonder conservative voters pick one or two easy issues to focus on, generalities like “freedom and liberty” and “cut taxes.”  If they tried to make sense out of the party’s actual direction and basic principles, they’d go crazy, maybe even vote Democratic.

While cookie cutter republicans across the country push their one size fits all nutritional food stamp check list they say protects against wasting taxpayer money on junk food, they’re gleefully doing just the opposite with school lunches, pushing taxpayer spending on whatever mush they want to dish out to our kids. The Northwestern:

(Rep. Glenn) Grothman, who serves on the House Education and Workforce Committee, got the chance to solicit feedback about federal nutrition guidelines and funding for school lunches.

“I think the people here believe — and I agree with them — that we shouldn't have those rules,” he said. “We should just be able to give the money to the state or give the money to the schools, and they would know what to give the children for lunch. We don’t have to pay a bunch of high-priced people, complete with paperwork, in Washington to micromanage what you’re having for lunch.”

Let's not beat around the bush; the Republican food stamp guidelines are more about reinforcing stereotypes of the poor than any real concern for the cost or nutrition.

Personal NOTE: The banned food makes up over half of my own weekly dinner offerings. And when I was struggling early on in my youth, the banned items made up almost all of the items. But foods are better now. All the things I buy to make our families meals have at least one ingredient banned by republicans. 

So why can't you buy food cheaply in quantity, choose to eat healthy pizzas, try to make decent spaghetti sauce (spices are banned), enjoy different flavored canned beans, what’s wrong with this picture. And what about potatoes? Heck, I eat one daily for breakfast mixed with other vegetables…they’re called home fries for gods sake.

This was a list put together by politicians who haven’t cooked or shopped a day in their lives. 

Follow like Sheep Republican Voters like their "Leaders!" Taking the "people" out of "We the people."

I've never been able to figure this one out: 

Republicans are outraged over Democratic policies that have supposedly made citizens dependent on government, all the while they are determined to elect "leaders" who will make all their decisions for them. 

These rugged, gun toting, constitution thumping individualists have never been happier than when their government does things for them, with little or no input from the public. Republican politicians act outside popular public opinion polls that also include their own conservative voters.  

We see proof of that everyday, from gun laws to money in politics. And nowhere did we get a reaffirmation of that "follow the leader" mentality than at a recent ALEC get together. 

Raw Story: "They don’t want people involved in the political process." Writing about her experience at The Progressive magazine’s website, Representative Chris Taylor, a Democrat, describes her experience inside the “ALEC universe:” 

Taylor: "One guy I was talking to, who was from one of these right wing think tanks was saying we need to curb Obama’s reckless power with these administrative regulations, and he wanted a federal constitutional amendment saying Congress has to approve federal regulations. I said, I don’t think most people are going to want to amend the Constitution for that. I don’t think that ignites people. Maybe it does on the far right, but most people don’t really care about that.

And he said, 'Oh, well, you really don’t need people to do this. You just need control over the legislature and you need money, and we have both.' That sentiment was underscored so many times to me, that they don’t want people involved in the political process, or in the policy process." 

The Democrats could take a lesson from this, at least when it comes to fighting and repeating our agenda often to everyone within earshot, and to businesses lobbyist with similar interests. At least until we get the money is out of elections:

Taylor: “I was really impressed by their infrastructure. I mean, we would never duplicate something like this on the left because, first of all, we would never take instructions from corporations, but the coordination that they have between these policy think tanks, the money and the legislators, in terms of just driving an agenda, it’s incredible. I've never seen anything like it. I’m fascinated by it because I've never seen anything like it from the left. So they've had incredible success."

In a real free market system, tort reform would be considered a manipulation of the market. And isn’t that what Republicans continue to whine about; special favors, picking winners and losers, blah, blah, blah.

Taylor: "They've had 71 bills introduced just this year that make it harder for most people who are injured to access the courts. We've certainly seen that here in Wisconsin. That was one of the first things that Walker did when he came in was push this tort reform through."

You have to wonder what companies are afraid of when they provide their valuable services or products. 

Conservative Wisconsin State Journal looking fairly liberal lately? Even they can't make sense of Republican Policy.

For a newspaper that has tried to match the extremist right wing bent of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, they're back tracking like nobodies business. The following pictures should send a message, and tell conservative voters to pay more attention. Political control doesn't always mean all is well:

The message...You were warned!!!!

"Local control" gets redefined by Republican State Sen. Mary Lazich.

 Small government Republicans don't exist. It's another myth created for the media. The problem conservative voters will thankfully have someday, will come when the rhetoric and platform of their party gets redefined right out from under them, leaving them stunned and stranded.

Republicans hold nothing sacred. Like "local control." Paid sick leave in Milwaukee ... downsizing Milwaukee's county board or cutting that boards pay, getting rid of the trolley, or vouchers in districts that don't want them, or...you get the idea.

Get ready for the all new and improved "local control." Here's audio of Republican State Sen. Mary Lazich on WPR. Local is REALLY local now, like in your home. This leaves the door wide open for the Republican state authority to take control of "less" local governments.

"The most local control is your home and what you do within your home and where you live. And I don't really think it's any of the employer's business where you live."

Here we go again: Republican Rep. Ott wants to spend $250 million taxpayer dollars year on ineffective tough Drunk Driving Laws & build 17 300 bed facilities costing $236 million. “You’ve got to start somewhere."

You may have heard the conspiracy theory about FEMA prisons being built to house Republicans who dare defy the orders of our imperial president. I'm not making that up. Now we’re finding out the idea itself has roots in the conservative agenda, where crime and dissent is met with harsh mandatory jail and prison time.

Instead of treatment and the recognition of drunk driving as a disease, Republicans want to lock em up.

This is all part of the father figure disciplinary authoritarianism that has characterized the current Republican Party.

The first paragraph of this Wisconsin State Journal story lays out a frightening plan:

Measures that would boost penalties for drunken driving would cost $250 million a year and send thousands more people to jail or prison, according to estimates provided by state agencies that would be charged with implementing the proposals. The state also would need to spend $236 million to build 17 300-bed facilities to house the expected increase in people serving time for drunken driving, the Department of Corrections estimates. Those estimates don’t include the extra costs to counties whose jails would house offenders serving sentences of a year or less.

And the treatment centers relating to the rehabilitation of alcoholism…anything? Republican were outraged over the imagined FEMA detention camps for conservatives because Democrats beat them to the punch, and targeted the wrong people. Republicans want to lock up citizens, starting with alcoholics. To them, Wisconsin drinkers are basically criminals, who need to be captured and punished. It’s that simple, and quite costly.

Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, acknowledged that the cost estimates are daunting. But he said they fail to take into account any reduction in drunken driving that might be spurred by harsher penalties. “The deterrent effect needs to be taken into account; otherwise there’s no point in doing it,” he said.

Evidence should guide legislation and there isn’t any that indicates criminalizing the offenses stops the behavior, state Rep. Jill Billings said. “We have to include treatment,” she said. “What we have to do is change behavior, not just punish.” A majority of those caught driving drunk their first time self-correct, said Billings, who helped build La Crosse County’s OWI court when she sat on the county board. Imposing mandatory jail time on offenders could create long-term effects.

“They could lose their job. And what does that do to the family?” she said.

Rep. Jim Ott is unmoved.

Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, the bill’s co-author, recognizes the common addiction to alcohol but notes those people “aren’t addicted to driving.”

That’s Jim Ott, the former weather man and brain trust pushing this public jailing program. 

But would Ott's solution work? Not really, and only temporarily. Read this mid-80's research here, an early 2000's report here, or more recently here, from the Gainesville Sun:

Tougher punishments may not be effective in deterring people from driving drunk, according to a study by University of Florida researchers. Increases in the minimum jail time keep few drunken drivers off the road and don't significantly prevent fatal car crashes, according to the study, researchers wanted to find out if stricter regulations deterred people from drinking and driving and if the number of accidents would drop in the population as a whole. "We found out that's not the case," he said.

In order for stricter penalties to work, people need to believe they will get caught, Wagenaar said. While sentences don't deter drunken drivers … Wagenaar said that doesn't mean jail isn't a useful punishment. 

Republicans give up our personal information and password privacy!!! I’ll bet they didn’t support background checks too.

Wisconsin House Representatives got lucky and didn't have to vote on background checks for gun purchases, but I think I can safely assume which way they would have voted, just by their reaction to following constitutional shredding bills below. The hypocrisy is appalling, and their willingness to give up our privacy rights jaw dropping. Small government...constitutional conservatives...my ass:

WSJ: CYBERSECURITY, CIVIL LIBERTIES: the House on April 18 passed a bill (HR 624) to expand data-sharing between private businesses and federal security agencies in order to bolster U.S. defenses against cyberattacks … it was criticized as an infringement on privacy rights and other civil liberties. The bill grants immunity from prosecution to companies that share customer data with the government.A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Paul Ryan, R-1, Ron Kind, D-3, Tom Petri, R-6, Sean Duffy, R-7, Reid Ribble, R-8

Voting no: Mark Pocan, D-2, Gwen Moore, D-4, James Sensenbrenner, R-5

Thought that was bad? Republicans couldn't wait to hand control of our personal lives to business.

PASSWORD PRIVACY: Voting 189 for and 224 against, defeating a bid to protect the privacy of social networking passwords as part of HR 624. The Democratic measure sought to prohibit employers from requiring employees to divulge passwords to sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn as a condition of employment. A yes vote backed the motion.

Voting yes: Pocan, Kind, Moore

Voting no: Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, Ribble

Are Republicans serious about getting tough on mental illness, in exchange for voting against background checks? Are you kidding? Dumb Ron Johnson would have made it easier for troubled veterans to carry a weapon:

VETERANS’ BACKGROUND CHECKS: Voting 56 for and 44 against, the Senate on April 17 failed to reach 60 votes for advancing an amendment to S 649 (above) setting up a special appeals process in the Veterans’ Administration for veterans who fail gun-purchase background checks because they have been adjudicated mentally ill. A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Johnson

Voting no: Baldwin

Walker's War on Smokers? Here comes the Big Government Nanny State Republicans.

Remember when Republicans and conservative radio talk hosts blasted Democrats for "nanny state" public smoking bans that would wipe out local bar owners in the state?

Shouts of big government and the loss of personal freedom rang out over the land.

What will they say now, after the Walker Authority made the following proposal?

How the times have changed...

Wisconsin Reporter: The governor recommends assessing state employees who smoke, $50 per month, hoping  they will be “encouraged to avail themselves of smoking cessation and other services designed to help them kick the habit.” The idea is clear: Smokers have more health-related problems, costing taxpayers more money.

And what of our freedom and liberty? Are nanny state Republicans suddenly admitting that smoking is a health risk, and another reason health care costs are skyrocketing? Big switch.

Yes.

“(B)ecause health care costs of smokers and other people who use tobacco are estimated to be 30 to 35 percent higher than nonsmokers, the Governor recommends that a tobacco user charge be included for state employee health plans beginning in calendar year 2014,” Walker’s budget states.

But I thought Republicans were against “sin taxes.” And would “the state of Wisconsin have to administer screenings to determine whether employees would have to fork over the $50 a month smoker’s fee. Would such testing offset revenue from the fee? “

Republicans have never been about small government, they've been about small liberal Democratic government. Republicans like their authoritarian big government model, where our leaders call all the shots, and why they never see the hypocrisy in their actions.