Democrats and Progressives are always screaming that requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls is discriminatory to minorities and the poor. The argument was always laughable on its face. As far as I can tell, photo IDs have nearly universal adoption; you need one to do just about anything. Write or cash a check, drive a car or, funny now that you mentioned it, apply for government benefits specifically designed to help the poor.
Food Stamp relief
As the press has reported, thousands of poor and low-income residents in Philadelphia are lining up to get supplemental food stamps to compensate for damages from Hurricane Irene last month. Theoretically, water damage from the storm may have destroyed food already purchased with food stamps. So, the government will give folks some extra food stamps to make up for the loss.
But, to get the benefits, in addition to proving storm damage, recipients will have to show a photo ID and prove they are residents of Philadelphia. In fact, in the application for benefits posted above, it is the FIRST requirement. Neither of which they have to do to vote.
Get ready for some leftist outrage. The food stamp program is designed exclusively for low income and poor people. No one else is intended to benefit. When debating Voter ID laws, which Pennsylvania refuses to adopt, we're told endlessly that some large number of the low income and poor don't have photo IDs. Such a requirement, we are told will 'disenfranchise' them. Is the government 'dis-food-stamping' them now?
Will some members of the mythic non-photo-id carrying poor now be turned away from food stamps? How can the government be so callous?
Of course, I expect that not a single person will be turned away for lack of a photo ID. I expect that each and every potential recipient will have no problem proving their residency. So, can we finally put the ridiculous 'lots of poor people don't have photo ids' argument to rest?