In an act of partisanship not normally associated with the inner workings of the Department of Children & Family Services, Kansas DCF took to Facebook and Twitter to refute "The Left" who has attacked their work and welfare requirement legal proposals.
http://www.kansas.com/...
The Kansas Department for Children and Families, which helped draft the legislation, responded with posts on Facebook and Twitter criticizing “the left” and The Eagle. The text of the Facebook post on the agency’s page was also sent to The Eagle as a letter credited to secretary Phyllis Gilmore.
“While the left is actively mocking the State of Kansas for passing legislation that protects taxpayer dollars and encourages personal responsibility, these are the same individuals who have since 1996, stood in the way of progress, keeping low-income Kansans dependent on assistance,”
As users took to Facebook to note that this didn't seem appropriate for a state agency to begin attacking the media and "the left", the department fired back:
Theresa Freed, spokeswoman for the DCF, said in an e-mail that the agency “appropriately responded to outrageous political attacks by liberal media organizations and activists with facts. It is common practice to correct blatantly false statements and distasteful political rhetoric.”
House Minority Leader Tom Burroughs, D-Kansas City, accused the DCF of “waging a political-style campaign” and being more concerned with public perception than in improving the lives of families in poverty.
“Before DCF posts another comment on social media, I would encourage them to ask themselves if the statement advances the agency’s mission: ‘To protect children, promote healthy families, and encourage personal responsibility,’ ” Burroughs said in an e-mail. “Attacking news outlets and politicizing public policy does neither and should therefore be avoided.”
Kansas, which has come under fire for promoting legislation which puts limits on the spending of welfare benefits, including limitations along the lines of: inability to use benefits in another state, which significantly impacts residents of Wyandotte (Kansas City, KS) and several border communities; and limits on cash withdraw to $25 per day - most ATMs do not yield $5 increments, and the limit significantly increases the ATM fee to benefit cost calculation.
The Kansas legislation specifically names activities it would deny - such as the use of TANF benefits in strip clubs, cruise ships, gambling establishments. While the state offers no proof that such activity has been ongoing, Kansas DCF argues within it's facebook these limits are what the public desires.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
And while no one is arguing these racier activities—like patronizing adult entertainment or casino gambling—should be permissible with government funds, banning them is more about stigmatizing the poor than creating any real hardship. The real problem is the $25 limit.
“This is not about a real problem, this is not a public policy decision,” says Liz Schott, of the Center on Policy and Budget Priorities. “This is all about politics and creating a wrong impression that public welfare recipients can’t spend their money wisely.”
Outside advocacy groups point out that the way to supposedly block these activities - where TANF cards already are prevented from operation - was to lower the ATM withdraw limit; and this legislation does so through stigmatizing those who receive benefits.
By equating those who receive TANF benefits with strip clubs, gambling, and cruise ships outside advocates point out that the entire strategy is aimed at making people believe that those who receive benefits should not receive them at all; or that there is widespread abuse.
To date, Kansas DCF has been unable to show prosecution or refusal of service based on any widespread illegal abuse on any of these activities. State Representative Jim Ward was quoted as saying "What problem does this really solve?"
The one issue that has been solved by this legislation so far is that the Brownback administration has effectively managed to target the poor and work to convict them in the court of public opinion of illegal use of benefits without any substantiated proof.