It's always nice to hear when at least someone comes to their senses. In this case, the person coming to their senses is Attorney General Bill Schuette of Michigan. Mr. Schuette decided to press fraud charges against a one Amanda Clayton because after she won a million dollars in the state lottery, she continued to collect food stamps and public assistance. You got it. Wins a million dollars. Thinks she's entitled to food stamps because she "isn't working". Riiiiiight. Good for Mr. Schuette.
According to the New York Daily News, Ms. Clayton is "...accused of collecting $5,475 in food stamps and public medical benefits over eight months". Just let that sink in. She wins a million dollars (OK, a $735,000 lump sum as opposed to the million being paid out in installments) and continues collecting money from the state because she "isn't working". Benefits aren't based on JUST whether or not you're working, cupcake! You have money! You don't need assistance! It's right there in the name! Assistance!
But for some reason, there seem to be a lot of unnecessary questions or some confusion over this most excellent move by Mr. Schuette. Naturally, some of the opposition comes from Ms. Clayton's defense lawyer, a one Stanley Wise, who said "They want to make an example of her...She's offered to repay the money. They haven't even sent her a bill. If that were the only issue, it would be over and done. They have chosen to exploit this for their purposes, and we have to deal with it." Yeah, see, it doesn't work like that. When someone gets caught stealing like a laptop, it doesn't make it OK if they just give the laptop back and say, "My bad!" As far the whole making an example out of her, I say good! I'm just sad that people even need this sort of an example. ("Citizens, I'd like to give you an example of what not to do. For example, if you win a million dollars, do not continue to take food stamps when you are perfectly capable of buying your own food. For example.)
Her mother isn't exactly seeing this for how it is either. Euline Clayton said that "...her daughter used bad judgment but that a criminal case is "crap"." You see, ma'am, most criminals use bad judgment. That's part of the criminal code of conduct. (Rule One: You must use bad judgment, as good judgment will cause you to not commit crimes.) She also noted that "The charges "are very extreme. ... They arrested her like a vulture...She didn't steal $1 million." I don't understand any of that. Arrested her like a vulture? So they circled her until she died and then they feasted on her rotting carcass? I don't think that happened. And no one is saying that she stole a million dollars. She stole $5,475. That's plenty.
The article also mentions that when a one Joy Yearout, a Schuette spokeswoman was asked "...why the attorney general chose felony charges over a civil lawsuit or why Clayton was arrested and locked up overnight for a non-violent crime", she declined to comment. I really wish that Ms. Yearout had answered with something to the effect of "We chose felony charges because she committed a felony." Seems simple and straightforward enough to me. It was kind of a stupid question to begin with if you're asking me. As far as being locked up for a non-violent crime, it might shock people to learn that people get locked up for non-violent crimes all the time. If they weren't locked up, they probably wouldn't be considered "crimes", per se. I wish I knew who made that inquiry. I'd really like to give them the answers that they so sought.
I hope this chick goes down. Yep, that's right. I'm hoping that they make a nice big, fat example out of her and all of her non-violent crime which stole taxpayer money from its originally intended purpose. If you'd like to see a video of this little snowflake in action, here's an interview that she did when she was approached by a reporter. Get ready to be angry, though. Very angry.