You'd be dancing too if you were given an ATM card which was loaded each month with other people's money to spend.  In California, $69 million of welfare money was spent outside the state, in places like Las Vegas, Hawaii, Miami and Guam.  While it's probable that this money was spent on essential necessities there's a big problem evident here; THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVING PEOPLE MONEY THAT THEY STOLE FROM OTHER PEOPLE!!!!

This whole, "We've got to crack down on fraudulent use of welfare money" is a bait and switch designed to get people talking about the symptom, not the underlying problem; that is the government using their guns to extract money from its citizens in order to give it to other citizens.  The argument shouldn't be based on how and where people are spending the government checks, the argument should center around the moral, legal and ethical grounds for taking money from one set of people, through the threat of violence, and giving it to another set of people.  That they blow it on strippers in Vegas, or Jimmy Buffet paraphernalia is unimportant.

Want a foolproof way to eliminate all 'fraudulent welfare' spending?  Eliminate welfare programs.  If you had more money in your pocket after every paycheck and knew that there was no government program in place to 'help' the less fortunate, would you be more or less likely to give more to your church, your favorite charity, your local food kitchen?  If the government wasn't monopolizing 'welfare', would there be more or less charitable organizations?  If you knew that there may be a day when you lost your job and had to rely on the generosity of strangers, would you be more or less likely to help a stranger in need?

Don't be blinded by the government mouthpieces when they try to get you seeing red over things like 'fraudulent welfare spending'; it's all fraudulent and use every opportunity to make that point.  When the story comes up in conversation, challenge people to explain why it's moral for the government to steal your money, but somehow immoral when that money is not spent on the 'official', government approved items.  In fact, I'm actually in favor of doing the exact opposite of whatever the government says to do, so I applaud the welfare queens (and kings) for defying the government.  Also, who really is the smarter one here; the working stiff who takes home about 40% of his wage after all the federal, state, local, municipal, medicare, social security, sales and use taxes or the welfare recipiet who knows how to work the system and takes home just slightly less than the working stiff?  I don't think many people are really prepared to admit who's the real smart one (notice I said smart, not moral).

This story also represents a common theme among the elites; divide and conquer.  They use this tactic repeatedly and with great effect.  Drive a wedge between welfare recipients and those not on the dole.  There are probably some really deserving people on welfare (deserving of assistance, not forced charity) and there are probably some really lousy workers just getting by in their jobs to collect a paycheck.  But turn one side against the other and watch them hate each other all day long.  If they're hating each other, they have no time to turn their anger to the truly deserving party; the government.

Refuse to be drawn into the fake debate over where other people's money should be spent; refuse the premise entirely and argue for the elimination of government every chance you get.