Wow. I think that's highly optimistic. I expect 50%-60% will be lost to fraud or spent on non essentials.
No one will monitor it, or if they do, we'll never hear about it. That would be racist, you know...
Sure, it's monitored. This is very similar to the cards which are now used to distribute other benefits, such as food stamps (which I had to research in my previous job) and those benefits have restrictions on purchases such as tobacco and alcohol.
You could be right.
Although I hasten to add that I did not count stuff spent on non-essentials in my 95% figure.
I used that percentage because I've been involved, through my years, in several instances where settlement checks and such had to be distributed.
With a halfway decent system, it was always acceptable that 5% of the money would be distributed incorrectly, lost, etc.
In this case, and not including what is actually PURCHASED with the money, which will likely never be monitored, I might reduce that acceptable percentage to 85-90%.
Factor in goods (drugs?) purchased with the money, then your number is probably closer to correct.
On another note, I notice Hillary out and about, all grand and announcing her legislation to REVERSE the legislation that SHE voted for.
I speak of creating the feel-good-sounding name of the Department of Homeland Security. That's a liberal thing if ever there was one.
Then she has the nerve to say she wants to get it back to the way it was during the Clinton administration. So why did she change it?
Further, why can't one of those reporters raise their tiny, teeny hands and ask the lady this?
Man, they're not shy about asking Bush if he's going to fire Karl Rove or the FEMA head. THIS lady is a senator, NOT the first lady. Why can't they ask her this?