[Homeslice]

OK fine, so it's not even close to being a major election issue, but even if this program doesn't save any money at all, what is wrong with preventing people from spending money on things they shouldn't be spending money on? The value of a government program is not measured solely by how much money it saved or collected.

Also, by preventing people from spending welfare on inappropriate things, maybe they will become more motivated to get off welfare, thus saving everyone money. Even if not, who cares. I'm all for "owning" people who try to abuse my taxpayer dollars, as long as the net cost of doing so isn't huge.

This program might be poorly executed, but the intent is good, IMO.

As another example, why is nobody complaining about the expense of running the SEC? Should we only enforce on rich people?