State legislatures have been very active in the first month of 2013 drafting bills to restrict where cash benefits like TANF can be used. Typical prohibited businesses include liquor stores, gaming establishments, adult entertainment venues, tattoo and piercing shops, fortune tellers and bingo parlors.
However, New York Assembly Bill 3050, introduced last week, goes a little further. Paragraph G of the bill states that the state will also prohibit benefit access in "[a]ny business providing services that have been deemed inconsistent with the intent of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance." OTDA is the executive agency responsible for the administration of public benefit programs in the State of New York.
The key word in this paragraph is "any." This is a big difference between what we've seen so far in benefit restrictions in other states where the prohibitions are targeted at specific businesses. This is more of an open-ended prohibition.
But this paragraph raises some important enforcement questions. Such as:
The problem with open ended prohibitions like this is that they raise more questions than they answer. We'll see how the Assembly and OTDA answer these questions going forward.
For more information on public benefit restrictions visit the Electronic Funds Transfer Association.
The key word in this paragraph is "any." This is a big difference between what we've seen so far in benefit restrictions in other states where the prohibitions are targeted at specific businesses. This is more of an open-ended prohibition.
But this paragraph raises some important enforcement questions. Such as:
- What exactly is the intent of the intent of OTDA?
- What would make a particular business inconsistent with the OTDA intent? Take a race track, for example. We surely don't want beneficiaries turning into rail birds, gambling away their monthly cash benefits two bucks at a time. On the other hand, why shouldn't a groom, stable hand, or other low wage worker who might be eligible for a benefit access that cash through an ATM on or near the track property, provided the beneficiary doesn't gamble with them ?
- Who within OTDA is going to decide what is a prohibited location?
- How will OTDA set the rules for complying with this legislative directive?
- Is the legislature punting its authority to set law in this area to the executive branch, and if so, why?
The problem with open ended prohibitions like this is that they raise more questions than they answer. We'll see how the Assembly and OTDA answer these questions going forward.
For more information on public benefit restrictions visit the Electronic Funds Transfer Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment