Tucson Citizen.com
The Data Port - Politics, Literature, And The Little Disturbances of Man

Antenori On The Poor

by on Feb. 10, 2010, under Politics
Frank Antenori

Frank Antenori

Representative Frank Antenori apparently thinks the poor are self-indulgent cheats. He’s introducing legislation that would make spending money on cell phones, expensive cars, and HBO the grounds for losing their food stamps.

He conjures up the picture of a welfare queen buying a hundred bucks worth of food with her EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) Card and then throwing “two big jugs of booze and two cartons of cigarettes (onto the conveyor belt) and pulling $100 out to pay for it.” Not, I bet, that he has ever actually seen this.

C’mon, Frank, how about this: Next time some corporate welfare queen comes whining to you for a tax break to keep her business alive make her give up her BMW and drive a beater. Why should the rest of us support her extravagances?

More in Pol. & Govt.:

Is War Dead In America?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 at 9:26 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • tiponeill

    Hey – it worked for Regan – never underestimate the mean-spiritedness of Republicans.

  • TeaJay

    Well it does happen. Maybe you aren’t mingling with the “poor” enough. As a former grocery store clerk, I have personally seen it too many times to count. Now I work at a utility, and we regularly have deadbeat customers who get behind on paying their utility bill, yet drive off in tricked-out SUV’s and sport manicured nails and designer purses. I’d like to mention: I qualify for welfare but I’d rather work hard and earn a better life. It ticks me off to see people who don’t want to be inconvenienced by work asking for handouts.

  • leftfield

    The worst kind of political pandering to the lowest common denominator voter.

  • Don Smith

    Next time some corporate welfare queen comes whining to you for a tax break to keep her business alive 

     If the “corporate welfare” is tax breaks, favorable zoning or other incentives that led the queen to locate her business in our community in the first place, I’d consider it.  Especially if her business employs locals and buys supplies from local businesses.  I’d CERTAINLY pay for this kind of “welfare” more readily than funding personal extravagances, such as cell phones and car payments.
    I’m well aware that having a car and a phone makes life much, much easier.  But that doesn’t mean I’m willing to pay for it.  Especially in the dire economic straits the state finds itself in.
    I’d be interested in seeing the details of Frank’s bill. Do you have a link to it, or a story on it?  

    • leftfield

      Incentives to locate businesses in our community have not really done near so much for the community as they have done for the businesses in question.  The MLB teams some immediately to mind, but there have been many others over the years.  I can’t really feel any better about a corporate executive driving my BMW than someone on foodstamps.

      • Don Smith

        You don’t see the difference between a “corporate welfare queen” who does business in this town, pays taxes in this town, employs people in this town, brings clients to this town, buys services in this town, brings employees to live in this town…and someone who uses taxpayer money to pay for essentials so they can buy extravagances?

        • leftfield

          What they do is exploit workers, demand concessions, run the government and ruin the environment; all while they’re telling us how good it is for us.  Yes, we should all get down on our knees and be grateful for those $7.25/hour jobs – it leaves more money for shareholder returns.  After all, we must have our priorities and certainly no other alternatives are possible. 

          • Don Smith

            OK, I’ll bite—what are YOUR alternatives?

            certainly no other alternatives are possible

            The floor is yours, Left.  Convince us.

          • leftfield

            In order to understand what I mean by alternatives, Don, you have to first understand that “all history is the history of class struggle” and that the government of bourgeois democracies exists to manage the common affairs of the bourgeoisie, especially in relation to maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie through exploitation and oppression.  

            That said, it is clear that any “solution” to the inevitable and cyclical crises of capitalism as they play out in AZ that is within the context of that same system necessarily will result in increased oppression and exploitation of the working class.  Any real solution to the fundamental problem requires revolutionary change; a change from bourgeois democracy (a de facto dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) to proletarian democracy. 

            Practically speaking though, since real change is unlikely in the short term, my own hope is that the ninnies in Phoenix are unable to resolve anything and continue to focus on social engineering, forcing a crisis; perhaps even a crisis requiring Federal intervention and resulting in AZ losing its right to self-governance as a State for a time.    

    • dataport

      Don.. Read the Star story here. Details of HB2770 here
      The lege has been cutting business taxes since 1995…much good  it has done us.

      • Don Smith

        I don’t see where raising taxes or continuing to run state spending deficits is going to attract businesses, either.

        I agree—cutting taxes isn’t a panacea for economic growth.  But, high tax rates are clearly a disincentive when trying to attract businesses.  Unless I’m missing something here, don’t we need to attract more wage-payers to Tucson?

  • leftfield

    When the going gets tough, the Republicans get tough by demonizing and scapegoating the most vulnerable population available. 

    • Don Smith

      The “most vulnerable” are more than welcome to buy whatever they want.  With their own money.

      What many of we greedy Republicans don’t like…is the fact that some of the most vulnerable are abusing the charity they’re getting. 
      In DataPort’s example above, notice that Frank’s hypothetical welfare queen is not throwing two jugs of orange juice and two packages of Pampers on the belt to pay for with her own cash.

      Are you saying that, as a sign of our compassion to the less fortunate, we should subsidize the purchase of liquor and carcinogens?  Do Democrats want a society of sick, alcoholic voters whom they can easily manipulate?  Oh wait…

      • leftfield

        And yet, when our corporate friends abuse the welfare they receive, we hear barely a whimper from their footservants in government. 

        Are you saying that, as a sign of our compassion to the most fortunate, we should subsidize corporate profit and be held hostage to the empty promises of a better life for all?  Or that only the fat, white and rich are allowed cell phones and drugs? 

        The very notion that the bourgeoisie is being exploited by the working class or the lumpen proletariat is repellent and an attempt to divert from the real truth. 

        • Don Smith

          Left, the Internationale was playing in my mind as I read that. 

          • leftfield

            If the sarcasm wasn’t so obvious, I’d be overjoyed. 

  • http://tucsoncitizen.com Andy Morales

    We built three stadiums for Jerry Colangelo’s use: America West Arena, Bank one Ball Park (now Chase) and TEP in Tucson (for his Sidewinders) from tax payer money.
    Does that count as welfare?
     
     
     

    • Don Smith

      Actually, I was thinking of tax incentives that might get some businesses to locate full-time in the Tucson metro area.  Someplace like, for example, all those empty shopfronts near the Ronstadt Bus Depot on Congress. 

      I was showing some business colleagues from D.C. around downtown last week.  One of them, with obvious disbelief in his voice, remarked about the empty storefronts we were driving by, and then asked “This is your downtown?”

  • tiponeill

    “This is your downtown?”
    Just explain that Arizona is a Red State – ever been to beautiful downtown Birmingham ?

  • TeaJay

    You can’t compare an individual welfare abuser and a corporate welfare recipient. One results in dependency, the other results in growth. Antenori is making a valid point even though his plan is impractical. I don’t agree with the current welfare system but I also don’t agree with government intrusion into private liberties. I like the idea about trading $ for work. You want $100 from the government, you give up 10-12 hours of your time. (Obvioulsy not referring to elderly or disabled, talking about able-bodied people.)

    • leftfield

      I doubt the right wing is going to support the notion of government competing with the private sector for labor.  It is essential for business that there be a population of surplus workers available keeping wages low and profits high.  These “surplus” human beings have to be kept alive and tractable through supplementation at taxpayer expense (socialize the costs, privatize the profits).  The question is just how little they can get by with; how much they can be squeezed before exploding.

      • TeaJay

        I think you’re right – maybe the answer is to get government out of the equation. The poor (self-inflicted, or not) can ask private charities and churches for $ and in turn work it off with time/labor. There will always be surplus workers who will not ask for help from anyone because there will always be honor. *jab* Whatever the solution, I hope it reduces fraud and restores my right to keep my own earnings.

        • TeaJay

          I realize, I paint the picture of a poor person asking for a job. How ridiculous! (Borrowing some lefty-sarcasm for effect.)

  • TeaJay

    … might I add it is far too easy to be certified “diabled” and collect social security as well. We need social-program overhaul to occur in the application process.

    • TeaJay

      *disabled, as in: “I am a disabled typist.”

  • http://tucsoncitizen.com Andy Morales

    True the tax breaks we gave to firms such as Weiser Lock and Slimfast really paid off…… 

    • Don Smith

      Andy, you are a fine rock thrower. Now…what’s your solution for our revenue crisis?

      • Andy Morales

        I didn’t know going after unknown “welfare queens” was a solution to the revenue crisis.
         
        I would look at the private school tax credit and issue a directive to have all public entities to end any contracts they have with lobbyists paid with tax dollars, including “spokes people.”  Those jobs should be done by employees already working. If I can speak for myself and describe what I’m doing and why I’m doing it at any moment then why can’t heads of departments?
         
         
        I would set a limit for administrative costs for public schools (and finally define what an administrative cost is because districts throw lots of stuff in there when we all know we are talking central administrators).  Make it a percentage of the budget and they can’t go over it.  You might also be able to do this with all state entities besides schools.
         
        I would reduce dollars for doctoral programs and divert those funds to early education.  Doctoral programs should be mostly funded by grants.
         
        I would end “rent a cow” loopholes in areas that are obviously not ranch land.
         
        I could go on.
         
         
         
         

        • fortbuckley

          Andy, I concur with ALL of your ideas for revenue enhancements.

          I also didn’t know that Frank touted cutting food stamp benefits for those who abuse the program as a “solution” for our state revenue crisis.   Where did he say that?

          I did find this on KOLD’s online website:

          TUCSON, AZ (KOLD) – A Tucson lawmaker wants to crack down on Arizonans who are receiving state funds to help with food and health care.
          State Representative Frank Antenori thinks you shouldn’t be smoking expensive cigarettes or drinking alcohol if the government’s helping to pay your living expenses.
          The Tucson Republican thinks you shouldn’t be buying more than basic TV service or have a cell phone, either,  unless it’s your only phone.
          Antenori is sponsoring legislation to make public assistance off limits to those who don’t comply.
          TUCSON, AZ (KOLD) – A Tucson lawmaker wants to crack down on Arizonans who are receiving state funds to help with food and health care.
          State Representative Frank Antenori thinks you shouldn’t be smoking expensive cigarettes or drinking alcohol if the government’s helping to pay your living expenses.
          The Tucson Republican thinks you shouldn’t be buying more than basic TV service or have a cell phone, either,  unless it’s your only phone.
          Antenori is sponsoring legislation to make public assistance off limits to those who don’t comply.

          StarNet (http://m.azstarnet.com/univ/show/1187825) gives a little more detail:

          His proposal would allow assistance beneficiaries to buy a vehicle worth no more than $5,000 or a television, as long as it doesn’t cost more than $300. And basic cable service is “almost a necessity,” Antenori said.

          I think you’ll find that a lot of AZ taxpayers agree with Frank.  If we’re on the verge of seeing state parks closed because of the state’s fiscal situation, I think you’ll find a lot of Arizonans taking a much closer look at how each public dollar is spent. 

          If a person can afford booze and cigarettes because your tax dollars and mine are going to pay for the food he eats, instead of the park my child plays in, expect many, many more voters to react the way Frank Antenori has.

          More to the point, it’s quite likely that Antenori is representing the will of a majority of his constituents here.  The taxpaying ones, that is.

          If people are using federal and state money to buy essentials (e.g., food), and then using their own income to buy luxuries (cigarettes, nice cars, liquor)—income that, I’m presuming, they’d otherwise use to buy those essentials—don’t taxpayers have a right to object to that?

  • TeaJay

    OK, Yes. Corporate abuses occur.  I prefer to chew one bite at a time, and the welfare queen is a very large bag of chips.

«
»