THEY GET YOU COMING AND GOING, PART MCMLXVII

Among the thing Fox Nation is covering while desperately trying to downplay the Chris Christie story is this (via Breitbart):

... Colorado Republicans have introduced a bill that if passed, would prevent food stamp recipients from withdrawing EBT cash inside pot dispensaries....

More, from the AP:

There haven't been any reports of public EBT cards being used at marijuana dispensaries. But lawmakers say pot shops should be added to the law to make clear it's not legal.

"We need this bill, if for nothing else, as a statement," said Rep. Jared Wright, R-Grand Junction.

... The bill would also prohibit public EBT use at adult-oriented entertainment establishments, something already banned under federal law.

Electronic cards that contain money for food assistance can't be used to withdraw cash, or for non-eligible items such as tobacco or alcohol. But public EBT cards that contain Social Security Disability benefits or other benefits can be used to withdraw cash, a provision that has led to prohibitions on using public EBT cards at establishments like strip clubs and casinos....

I'm fine with a prohibition on using EBT food aid to buy weed. But I bring this up mostly because, elsewhere on the right, I'm reading that the problem with government social services is that they're needlessly bureaucratic (that damn liberalism again!) and ought to be replaced with straight cash grants. Se Jonah Goldberg's recent column "Escaping the Rat Maze of the Welfare State":

... Charles Murray, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute and a legendary libertarian social scientist, wrote a wonderful book a few years ago, In Our Hands, in which he proposed an annual grant from the federal government of $10,000 for every American over 21 who stayed out of jail and still had a pulse. He was building on arguments made by two titans of libertarianism, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who also supported some version of a UBI [universal basic income]....

For 50 years, we've run a massive experiment around one approach: that bureaucrats and social planners can fix the lives of others by telling them how to live. For some it's worked, for others it's been an abject failure. But few can claim it's all been a smashing success.

Perhaps a compromise can be worked out. Why not give poor people a choice? They can stay within the rat maze of the current welfare state, or they can cash out. According to Rector, 100 million Americans receive aid from the government at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. Surely some of them are equipped to spend that money better than the government. Why not give them a shot at proving it? ...

David Brooks also wrote favorably about this idea on Friday, citing a receint National Affairs article that advocates an "income support grant" in lieu of the current forms of benefits.

So when we impose conditions on poor people's government aid, we're evil big-government nannies whose heavy-handed liberal attempts at behavior modification are inevitably doomed to failure. And when we don't impose conditions on poor people's government aid, then it's a scandal that those damn liberals are letting beneficiaries use benefits on strip clubs and pot.

Lt's be honest: If we ever do what Murray and Goldberg and Brooks want us to do, the main result is going to be an endless succession of stories about what those takers are doing with their universal basic income/income support grant checks. Am I right, righties?