-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The Food Stamp program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is a target for Republicans who voted to cut $40 billion from the program. The reasons that Republicans have given are so divorced from reality that one can reasonably suspect their true motivations lie elsewhere. The primacy of fantasy in the GOP has been recently evidenced by Michele Bachmann who sees signs of the End Times, a wished-for global apocalypse.
First up on the list of fantasies is by Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Arkansas) who said “the food stamp program [grew] exponentially because the government continues to turn a blind eye to a system fraught with abuse.” In reality, SNAP participation closely tracks the long term unemployment rate, prolonged by Republicans. The sale of SNAP benefits for cash, called “trafficking,” has been cut to $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits. The reality is a one percent abuse rate, the fantasy is SNAP is “fraught” with abuse.
The next fantasy is that able-bodied people are getting food stamps instead of working. The reality is that 83% of all SNAP benefits go to households that include a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. The average individual gets $133 a month in SNAP benefits. It is ridiculous to imagine that a person is going to quit their job for $133 a month that can only be spent on food, but Republicans bear ridicule well.
The next fantasy is that SNAP recipients use their benefits to buy cigarettes and alcohol. The SNAP program uses Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards, similar to debit cards, that can be used in the supermarket checkout line only to purchase food. The Right likes to point to Jackie Whiton, a Peterborough, New Hampshire, store cashier who declined to accept an EBT card as payment for a pack of cigarettes. In reality, the EBT card contained state assistance money, not SNAP benefits, which can be used to purchase tobacco products. The store she worked for has a policy of accepting EBT cash benefits. In reality, Whiton was fired for violating the company’s policies.
The Republican war on programs that benefit Americans in need isn’t based on a philosophical commitment to small government. If it were, the $20 billion in farm subsidies, a welfare program for agribusiness, would be near the top of their hit list. According to a Greenberg report, the Republicans “are very conscious of being white in a country that is increasingly minority.” The report goes on to say that the “race issue [is] very much alive.” There you have it. Obama is taking their money and giving it to “Those People.”
H/T: Dave Johnson, Paul Krugman, Dottie Rosenbaum, Amanda Marcotte, Brian Tashman, WMUR.
Let me continue to give kudos to the new and improved guest bloggers. For Tina and pmjokes, there are guest bloggers who make posts on weekends and do other odd jobs here like retrieving lost comments. Up until the recent past, some were….well let’s say less than helpful in welcoming people or ideas. For reasons only known to them, their demeanor has changed and the atmosphere here is better than it was just a week or 2 ago. Oh, you’ll still get condescension and pomposity, but that’s part of how some folks are.
You are quickly picking up that some here don’t have a lick of street smarts or common. They quote studies, have no information on how the studies were conducted, and either don’t care, or don’t realize, the studies were conducted by the people running the program. You know, like studies done by tobacco companies on the health risks of smoking. “None of my family cheat” is a classic one don’t you think!
Here is something for you data pushers to chew on.
I do online surveys for extra money, its actually pretty legit, you do the survey, the money goes right to paypal instantly 🙂
The irony is, they know we are not being honest, but they still sell the info we give them, to who ever they sell it too.
There will be surveys that require a person to own a business with 100+ employees and gross 1M+ annually.
As if someone running a multi-million dollar business has time to do a survey for $1.50 and would actually be signed up to said sites.
Almost all surveys require you to choose offers in the path (that you are truly interested in) or the survey will not credit.
So, in short, if you don’t click on ads and sign up for them, you will not get paid, so you have to lie and actually pick offers, even though you are not actually interested in learning more about the advertiser.
And you still believe this is accurate and trusted data?
And you still believe that the higher ups have accurate info on what happens in the welfare system and everyone is being 100% honest?
Then you tell people that see abuse done with their own eyes, are full of shyt?
The real irony comes in when we have actual real data on what happened at more than one walmart as soon as people realized they could scam their cards, they completely emptied out walmart,and once it ended, left full shopping carts all through the store and walked out.
But virtually no abuse happens huh?
How does one convince themselves that what happens right in front of their faces isn’t actually happening?
@Tony C.
You personally observe 100% of all those collecting benefits and know for a fact that the numbers you give are accurate?
You follow every single person, 24/7 and know for a fact that exactly 98.7% of the people use their benefits as extended?
Seriously?
And you do have it backwards.
You are claiming I am wrong about what I see with my own eyes and you have no justification or real evidence to do so.
This would be like me saying I had pizza for dinner and you claiming that I did not because the statistics you read claim no one bought pizza in my town that day.
But since you obviously possess supernatural powers, I can’t compete with that and am done replying to your superior knowledge.
Good show bro.
@Mike Spindell
actually, yesterday, I was told to get lost, its not important to me though, just wanted to let you know you were wrong.
Its not that I don’t like your analogies, but you go completely off subject.
Its like if I am telling you how to bake an apple pie and you try to debate it by explaining how cakes are prepared.
It becomes irrelevant right?
It also appears a few here are talking out the side of their mouths and come off like know it alls, put words in other peoples mouths, go completely off topic to “make their points”, try to talk down to each other and if it were not for the few who told me to stick around, i would have left already.
I also notice that red herring attacks are quite normal for some people to use in their arguments.
Yah, I have this stupid idea that the whole world can get along and respect each other, silly me.
Also, I mean zero offense to anyone and will probably become hated here, but I speak my mind and when I am pushed, as some are doing, I will push back.
“Its not that I don’t like your analogies, but you go completely off subject.”
PMJ,
That is your opinion, not mine or others. Someone yesterday may well have told you to get lost, but that was one person who doesn’t speak for either Professor Turley or his blog and given that your claim is somewhat specious.
In my comment at 11:00am on 10/12 I gave the background of my expertise on this subject, which is Food Stamp Fraud, which in fact it was once my job to deal with. Besides that, other commenters have supplied the up to date statistics on Food Stamp Fraud and they have shown why the program is so well and so easily monitored.
In response people have been giving their anecdotes of what they perceive, but can’t really be sure is fraud. Others with no evidence rather than their own pre-judgment and political disposition have “refuted” those statistics by saying “you can’t trust the government”, hence their statistics.
The analogy you reject as being “off-topic” speaks to the similarities of people blaming the less powerful for their lack of power. Where it succeeds is perfectly in tune with the discussion here, where millions of people are by false analogy besmirched. As I see it there is a purpose behind this. Many people attacking the SNAP program have pledged to “shrink government to where it would fit in a bathtub drain.” Part of their methodology is to do away with any programs that give assistance to those in need.
Some here, a small minority, feel that they somehow victims of the blog regulars and their posts are filled with animus towards the guest bloggers, including me. This minority actually attempts to drive people away from this blog by talking of conspiracies and disparaging the integrity of all who disagree, particular GB’s like myself. You will find, if you haven’t, that they become almost obsequious towards you in order to gain “allies”. The pathos of this is that this minority is allowed to post their vitriol, but that is nowhere good enough. The whole end game for them is making everything about themselves. But hey, you’re an adult, make up your own mind as time passes and enjoy the freedom of thought that this blog provides daily.
pmj: The way this works is I am innocent until proven guilty, and your empty opinions are not evidence of my guilt.
The way this works is if all the existing SNAP recipients are innocent until proven guilty, the level of abuse is nearly zero.
My opinion and research are evidence of your guilt (or mistaken perceptions) in my eyes, and I have the right to point out what I believe is the truth just as much as you do: I believe the truth is you are wrong, or exaggerating, or lying. I don’t have to prove to you what I believe. SNAP recipients are innocent until proven guilty and by that standard, which you want applied to you, you don’t get to claim there is rampant fraud unless you can prove it is systemic and program wide, which you cannot, because all the stats available to us say it is not.
Your opinion and anecdotal evidence does not trump my opinion and anecdotal evidence, and as I said among nieces, nephews, cousins and friends I know a handful of SNAP recipients and none of them used their cards for anything but food they and their family ate themselves. So at least MY opinion and anecdotal evidence is in complete alignment with the known statistics and studies of fraud and abuse in the SNAP system.
You are wrong, misled or disingenuous I don’t care, your examples (if you have even observed them) are not representative of the SNAP system, you are cherry picking from the overall 1.3% rate of abuse and presenting a false picture by not mentioning the 98.7% of people that use their SNAP benefits exactly as intended.
Bob Kauten 1, October 15, 2013 at 12:13 pm
nick,
Are you a secretary? Are you offering your services?
Methinks you are easily bullied. Your description of “running the gauntlet” on this forum fills me with pity for you.
I’m sorry that you’re a perpetual victim, but I believe it’s what you enjoy about life.
You wouldn’t wear that “please kick me!” sign, if you didn’t love it.
BOB.. WELL, NOW AREN’T WE TWO SCOOPS OF GRUMPY AND A BOWL FULL OF MISERY THIS MORNING….
AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT OF NEGLECT… THE “BULLY”.. SELF-SATISFIED WITH YOUR LITTLE COMMENTS THAT ARE INTENDED TO HURT SOMEONE, THAT ARE FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE AND I AM QUITE SURE HAVE BEEN USED IN REFERENCE TO YOU, MANY TIMES, AND NOW YOU USE THEM AS A RELEASE ON PEOPLE THAT ARE UNDESERVING OF YOUR PAST.
I live in this world… the world the media talks about… the one you only read about. I am the one you should be attacking… you know the one that lives by that neighborhood where welfare runs rampant… where fraud is seen as bright as the sun…. I don’t live in some delusional state that the world is perfect and fraud is minimal. I see. You live in the “I read it” world Bob.
I was on food stamps many years ago and again within the last 2 years. If you rely on your experience of being indicative of the larger truth, and therefore fraud, then you have to rely on mine which is I never saw any fraud when I was using them so therefore there is no fraud. Same thing, anecdotal, different take away.
@leejcaroll “. If you rely on your experience of being indicative of the larger truth, and therefore fraud, then you have to rely on mine which is I never saw any fraud when I was using them so therefore there is no fraud. Same thing, anecdotal, different take away.”
Good point. I think it is so important to distinguish the great difference between seeing some trafficking and seeing evidence of wide spread trafficking.
If one were to sit, sipping coffee, at First Street and New York Avenue, NE it is likely you would see some activity suggesting people trafficking in EBT cards.
But you would have to sip coffee 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, and witness at least 4 trafficking transactions each and every hour in order to sample 1% of the 147,327 SNAP (January 2013) recipients in DC.
Even if an intrepid observer did sample 1% of SNAP recipients, there would still be the question of how the sample was selected and whether it was representative of the entire population of 147,327 SNAP recipients in DC.
A sample gathered at First and New York Avenue, NE would likely be very unrepresentative of the typical SNAP recipient in DC or the nation.
SNAP recipients in DC include nearly 10% elders, 60 and above. There might be a few old time dope fiends hustling around First and New York, NE. But old for a dope fiend means more like 45 or 50-ish. There seem to be very, very few 60 and over on the streets around First and New York, NE.
In DC, SNAP recipients have serious social problems only slightly above the incidence in the general population. It is just about a lock that the vast majority of hustlers in the vicinity of First and New York, NE have multiple, serious social problems, including severe substance abuse, histories of physical and sexual abuse, long histories of criminal activity to mention just a few.
The only reasonable conclusion is that it is very, very unlikely that any one observer could gather a large, representative sample of SNAP recipients.
To put it another way, it is very unlikely that a sample gathered at one place such as First Street and New York Avenue, NE would be representative of all the SNAP recipients in DC.
But if you sit there long enough, sipping coffee, you might convince yourself that trafficking is rampant – and it would be at that specific location, at that exact time.
I gave you guys the means to calculate the error rate for a sample of any given size, based on the known N = 47,760,285.
From that you can calculate the power of a sample of a dozen or so anecdotes.
nick,
I appreciate your effort to school me.
Office warfare? Yes, I can believe there are a lot of chastened paper-clips, out there.
May I choose which part of me you chew?
As to your rather clumsily written threat, you can see me shiver in antici…………………………pation.
@Otteray Scribe
Even though what you said isn’t exactly a red herring, I will label it as such, because its irrelevant to my discussion and proves nothing.
data gathered by the higher ups is almost never consistency with the real world, when it comes to things like this.
In the examples I gave in a few posts up, there is no data that can prove it, why?
“Warning, sarcasm below”
Of course, the drug man and those who abuse the foodcard are knocking down doors to purger themselves and admit their guilt.
How stupid can I be?
(off computer for only a day and had 206 emails from this one post so sorry if someone else already posted this.
Efforts to Curb Other SNAP Abuses Are Extensive and Effective
USDA has cut “trafficking” — the sale of SNAP benefits for cash, which violates federal law — by three-quarters over the past 15 years. Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked. USDA has also permanently disqualified thousands of retail stores from the program for not following federal requirements. In fiscal year 2012, USDA’s retailer fraud investigations resulted in 342 convictions and $57.7 million in recoveries. When cases of SNAP fraud are reported in the news, it is because the offenders have been caught, evidence that states and USDA are aggressively combating fraud.
In addition, SNAP now comes in the form of an electronic debit card –– like the ATM cards that most Americans carry in their wallets — which recipients can use in the supermarket checkout line only to purchase food. This has been a key tool to reduce trafficking. Sophisticated computer programs monitor SNAP transactions for patterns that may suggest abuse. Federal and state law enforcement agencies are then alerted and investigate. Retailers or SNAP recipients who defraud SNAP by trading their benefit cards for money or misrepresenting their circumstances face tough criminal penalties.
Combined Error Rate Does Not Represent Excessive Federal Spending or Fraud
Some critics have attempted to portray SNAP’s combined error rate as a measure of excessive federal SNAP expenditures due to errors. This is incorrect: the combined error rate includes both overpayments, which cost the federal government money, and underpayments,which “represent unintentional financial savings to the federal government,” as the Government Accountability Office has noted.
◾
The overpayment error rate counts benefits issued to ineligible households or issued to eligible households in excess of what federal rules provide. The underpayment error rate measures errors in which eligible, participating households received smaller benefits than SNAP rules direct. The combined payment error rate is the sum, not the net, of the overpayment and underpayment error rates.
In 2011, for example, the overpayment error rate was 2.99 percent and the underpayment rate was 0.81 percent. The combined error rate was thus 3.80 percent. But the net loss to the federal governmentfrom errors was only 2.18 percent.
◾It is important to note that overpayments count toward a state’s error rate even when the state recoups the overpaid benefits from households. In fiscal year 2011, the most recent year for which data are available, states collected about $314 million in overissued benefits.
◾Relatively few SNAP errors represent dishonesty or fraud by recipients. The overwhelming majority result from honest mistakes by recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers. In recent years, states have reported that about 60 percent of the dollar value of overpayments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value of underpayments were their fault, rather than recipients’ fault. Much of the rest of overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households facing a program with complex rules.
◾States and USDA also measure error rates for cases in which states denied or terminated benefits. (The underpayment error rate includes only cases where states gave some benefits, but not as much as the household should have received under program rules. It does not include actions that completely denied SNAP to eligible low-income households.) Nationally, in 8 percent of the instances in which households were denied or terminated from SNAP, the action was found to be in error. Since USDA does not calculate the amount of benefits that these improperly denied households would have received, this “negative error rate” is not directly comparable to the overpayment and underpayment error rates. Nonetheless, improper denials and terminations, like underpayments, result in significant (if unintended) savings to the program. In fact, the combined savings from underpayments and improper denials may actually exceed the loss resulting from overpayments of benefits.
Further Improvements Underway
SNAP has succeeded in providing timely food assistance to eligible low-income households while maintaining strong program integrity and payment accuracy.
There nonetheless is room for improvement, both in reaching eligible households and in combating illegal activities on the part of retailers and households. States and USDA are working together to develop policies and procedures that will strengthen program integrity without making it more difficult for eligible households to participate. In recent months USDA has announced new anti-fraud initiatives and the farm bills under consideration in the House and Senate include numerous provisions designed to enhance SNAP program integrity.
In addition, states have launched their own initiatives. For example, Utah has developed a tool that helps eligibility workers conduct data matches across a wide range of state and federal databases (such as Motor Vehicles, State Vital Statistics, Social Security Administration, Child Support, Unemployment Insurance, state tax records, consumer credit checks, and other commercial databases). These databases help states verify the income (and other eligibility factors) that the household reports and detect instances where households may not have reported accurately. Prior to the change, eligibility workers needed to query each database separately, which could involve separate links, user names, and passwords for each match. The new software, known as “eFind,” pools all the matches together for the worker within seconds, reducing processing delays and facilitating cross-program sharing of information — as well as facilitating detection of fraud and errors. Because the state used federal funds to develop the tool, Utah has made it available as “shareware” to other states free of charge.
States and the federal government are developing similar improvements to implement health reform. States and the Administration should look for ways to leverage improvements in health insurance eligibility systems for other programs, such as SNAP.
End notes:
[1] Congressional Budget Office, “The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” April 2012.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239
Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein named the Center 2011’s “Think Tank of the Year,” calling CBPP the “fastest, fairest, and smartest policy think tank in Washington.”
Article is from CBPP andcites CBO, not from the SNAP program or government statistics pmj . I belive you specifically asked where are stats not form gov’t (but GAO/other sites) so isn’t conflict of interest
Bobby, I’ve seen your ilk in many offices and have chewed your type up and spit you out. I’m no victim, there’s a trail of folk who can attest to that. Either are Tina or pmjokes. You’ll learn soon enough.
“I am not going anywhere, I have just as much right here as anyone else. 😀 ”
pmjokes,
Yes you do and I don’t notice where anyone has told you to get lost.
Sometimes people misconstrue the fact that others disagree with them strongly because others hold strong views, with not wanting them around. You may not like my analogies, but then again I may not like yours. That’s what life is about. Some here though like to attack others and when fire is returned think themselves victims. That’s sort of the way of the world. It takes all kinds. In a blog that cherishes free speech you are bound to have disagreements.
Poor, persecuted nick.
@nick spinelli
Actually, I have more intelligence in my pinky then some people here.
They may think they are smarter because the like what they see on paper, but in the real world that paper means nothing.
I am not going anywhere, I have just as much right here as anyone else.
😀
pmjokes, Here they are! Take notes now.
pmjokes,
Anecdotal evidence is not group evidence. As I commented above, there is vast room for error in small numbers. If you understand how to derive an error rate, you see the chance of error in such small numbers is enormous. This is an invitation to a Type I error. A type I error leads one to conclude that a supposed effect or relationship exists when in fact it doesn’t.
Type I errors are those where, if we invoked Rule 702 of the FRE, those kinds of data would be thrown out with prejudice.
The only way to avoid both Type 1 and Type II errors is to have an adequate sample size. Consider that in May-June 2013, there were 47,760,285 SNAP recipients. The link below takes you to an instructional paper on the relationship between sample size and power of the result. This is pretty basic stuff for anyone who has taken an introductory statistics course.
http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/edrm611/edrm11.htm
bfm, The studies conducted by the people in charge of the program doesn’t make you question any CONFLICT OF INTEREST? How about a GAO study? How about an independent study by people in the private sector? How about an ounce of skepticism?
nick,
Are you a secretary? Are you offering your services?
Methinks you are easily bullied. Your description of “running the gauntlet” on this forum fills me with pity for you.
I’m sorry that you’re a perpetual victim, but I believe it’s what you enjoy about life.
You wouldn’t wear that “please kick me!” sign, if you didn’t love it.
@Mike Spindell
Bro, you really know how to take this way into left field and completely off subject.
The fact is, walmart was the good guys who still allowed people to use their cards and people took total advantage of it.
(I dont care though and am not trying to judge them)
What corporate banks do, is not relevant.
What the US gov does, is also not relevant.
Almost everything you say is not relevant either.
pmjokes, They’re starting to wake up and circle their wagons. Sometimes it turns into a circular firing squad. You’re not educated enough to discuss w/ the elites here. That’s the message, although never said straightforwardly. You know nothing about SNAP, you’re merely a user. You merely know MANY SNAP users and abusers. You merely LIVE the reality. Move along now. They’ll explain everything you need to know on the subject. And understand, real world experience on virtually all topics here is scoffed @ by the elites. C’est la vie.
Gild the lily much, Bobby? We have made a few comments about you. Who are you billing for this time? Don’t you have any paralegals or secretaries to bully around?