Should Those collecting Unemployment be allowed to access their benefits in PA's Casinos?

 It is always fascinating to me what our legislators pass into law. Last week a majority of our State Senate passed SB 1030, which among other things allow Pennsylvanians collecting unemployment to continue accessing their accounts at ATMs located in Casinos.

Local State Senator Lisa Boscola offered an amendment putting in a requirement banning people from doing that but her effort was shot down.

I like Lisa, but sometimes I think the Nanny State is too close at hand for comfort.

It would be nice to think that anyone in dire enough financial straits to have lost their job and be collecting UC benefits would have the good sense not to spend their lifeline at a casino, but we all know that human nature is what it is. We are a species prone to do self destructive things that are not in our best interests.

We also need to realize that most people can have their UC benefits deposited directly into their bank account, and not have to use a state issued ATM card. So there really isn't a way to track how a person spends their benefits or where they access them without a serious violation of the right to privacy.

So is this much ado about nothing? No, because the reason the State Senate tackled SB 1030 to begin with is that Federal law dictates they reform the system so approximately 45,000 Pennsylvanians who are long termed unemployed can collect another 13 weeks of benefits. There are people who need and deserve the help.

But the answer is also yes. While nobody wants to see people using their benefits in a way that is not intended and doesn't really help their circumstances, we really don't have the right to tell people how to spend their benefits once they receive them. Where do you draw the line? Are we going to start telling those receiving benefits how much they can spend on groceries or what foods to eat? I know you can't use federal aid like food stamps to buy alcohol, but are we going to deny the unemployed their pack of cigarettes? Maybe we should demand that they use the state issued ATM cards and only allot them so many dollars to spend at gas pumps, so they can only look for jobs within a certain area? Do you see what I'm getting at? The next thing you know, government will start dictating to senior citizens what they have to spend their Social Security on, and how much they will have to put towards their healthcare. (Wait a minute, aren't they trying to do that?)

 My point is, While I don't deny the right of our government to look out for how our tax dollars are being spent, I do question the extent to which government should be allowed to monitor our personal habits.

There's a trade off here that some may not like, but we really need to think about just what we are opening the door to in the future.

Anyway,in the big picture, I think overall this is much ado about nothing. People who want to get around the Senator Boscola's proposed casino ATM access ban for state issued Unemployment Compensation debit cards will find a way of they want to. I bet (pun intended!) the numbers of folks who actually spend any UC money at the casinos is at best less than 5 % of the population accepting benefits. Unless someone produces irrefutable proof that hordes of the unemployed are flocking to casinos and blowing their benefits, I would bet  (pun intended!) UC benefit receivers actually hitting the casinos is more likely less than 1%. If anyone has any hard data on this, I would like to see it. I doubt the State Senate does.

It's likely just one more case of a well intentioned law with little practical application.

    One last thought: I personally wouldn't spend UC benefits in a Casino, but I'm sure the mayor of Allentown and City Council won't mind if you spend them at their proposed arena someday. But that's another argument, for another day. What do you think? Should the state block recipients from receiving their benefits at ATMs in a Casino? Feel Free to Comment.