Minnesota's "$20 crime for those on Public Assistance"

[MNBrewer]

I first heard of this on DU a few days ago. MN got new Republican majorities in both the Minnesota House and Senate (thank goodness we flipped the Governor to Dem), so I wasn't exactly surprised that something like this might be proposed. When I looked for additional information, all I could find was the same article reprinted on various left-wing websites.

SO I decided to actually look at Minnesota House File 171 to see what it contains <https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0171.1.html&session=ls87>

Any people interested in the actual content of the legislation, rather than a characterization of the content can find it at the link above.

[FSogol]

1. Can't you sum it up?

:shrug:

[katnapped]

2. I think they want to...

Make it a crime for anyone on public assistance to have a $20 bill on their person

[FSogol]

3. Yes, that was reported, but the OP seems to imply that that wasn't so. n/t

Edit: goofed up who created the original post. My apologies katnapped

[LoZoccolo]

4. That reply wasn't from the original poster. Here's what the bill really says.

It says that the state will give each person on public assistance $20 extra per day, but if someone is caught with someone else's $20, and it's been reported stolen, then there is an extra $20 fine imposed for the theft on top of whatever petty larceny charges already apply, payable to the victim of the theft.

I don't think it goes far enough but it's suprisingly good for Republican legislation, and I support it. I think people on public assistance have too little money to have it stolen by other people, and I agree that there should be an extra fine for stealing it.

[LoZoccolo]

5. P.S. I lied in reply #4.

This is why people need to read the original documents, instead of relying on other people to report what they say. The bill itself is not that long, and there is only one paragraph that mentiones a twenty-dollar sum.

[FSogol]

6. Well LoZoccol, do you want thanks for making DU less useable?

Is it really too much to ask to have something summed up rather than some mysterious implication followed by a link? Do I need to read original bills for every piece of legislation in all states to understand what is going on? How would I ever get anything done? What begins with "T" and rhymes with "roll?" Do you know?

[LoZoccolo]

7. You would think that if someone says "someone else lied about the bill, here it is".

That you would not repeat the mistake of having someone tell you what it said. Or if someone might have looked at how long the bill was before declaring it too long to read.

[MNBrewer]

10. Read the bill, it's not that long.

[Zephie]

8. Thank you. I was really appalled before...

Thank you for doing the leg work!

[MNBrewer]

9. I'm not saying this is a good bill

but it's not what has been reported in various DU threads.