-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.
Well I guess the Republicans got their wish SNAP recipients will be cut (depending on circumstances) approx. 5.5% starting 1-Nov-2013. IOW if you get $200/month on your EBT (SNAP) card you can expect about $189 next month. Wow and the 4 richest men in USA hardly pay ANY taxes to IRS. Hmmmm, sumtin’ ain’t right here!
BTW – the Food Stamp program was replaced by an EBT card under the SNAP program. It’s a debit card (with PIN number) issued, NOT old-style easily defrauded stamps. So all you “there’s fraud in them there guberment’ programs” are all wet. They put your allotment on there with restrictions to only grocery food items NO LIQUOR! Then the DSS puts in an small extra dollar amount for other non-staple items like T.P. and stuff. But it’s not much so you still can’t buy beer with it.
They should force one of those members of Congress to live on $189 a month for food. John Boehner would go nuts! He’s got to have his surf & turf with beer. Good ol’ Cincinnati boy (with a fake tan) ya’ know.
When I was a kid the govt gave out food, not vouchers or “stamps”. The Congresswoman who invented the stamp thing lived in Saint Louis. Since then the corruption arguments ramped up. But I remember poor people selling government food like potatoes on the corner for cig money. Of course they died of cancer and cant be said to be a cancer on society so to speak.
Bron, Maybe that would work but I would think it would skew any and all statistics as to how many need help with food, vs housing, vs home health care, etc.
“I was planning on taking on the Bill of Rights first (probably in 2-3 parts but I might go granular with it), but I’m not immune to the idea of stretching that to include the whole enchilada at some point.”
Gene, wasn’t this something Ayn Rand was working on? – you know, to excise all the logical fallacies?
leejcaroll:
why dont they just put it all under one org. and do away with all of the duplication of effort? the savings could be used to help more people.
Also Bron because there is different monies for different things. such as home health care, heating help, medicare, etc. Just because you need to apply for food stamps does not mean you need help with your housing costs, etc.
pdm,
I was planning on taking on the Bill of Rights first (probably in 2-3 parts but I might go granular with it), but I’m not immune to the idea of stretching that to include the whole enchilada at some point. JT has already made some interesting suggestions here previously for changing the judiciary.
Bron,
The “N” in SNAP stands for “nutrition,” aka, food. The program is for food. It is not for anything else, nor should it be.
They need to raise my food stamps so I can buy more guns
pdm:
I did not say we should give everyone subsidies. I am talking about the money already being given to people in the form of Snap payments.
Why should it be limited to food?
Bron, I can’t keep up with you! You have just created another zinger…let’s make them wards of the state. *sigh*
Also, too…(paraphrased) let’s be fair and give Everybody subsidies to spend however they like.
Again *sigh*
You are not a serious man, Bron. There is no way I can engage in this kind of conversation. I am outclassed. Sorry.
PDM:
I am fundamentally opposed to food stamps/snap etc. I understand that people have to be fed if they cannot feed themselves, I would prefer a private sector solution but I dont think that will happen in the current intellectual/philosophical environment.
Since food stamps exist and are limited to food products, why is that? It seems to me that people should be able to spend the money on necessaries of life as well. Why should only one segment of the economy benefit from tax payer money? If you are going to give people money we should trust them to do the right thing with it. I think people receiving should be able to do what they want with it, most rational people will not spend it on beer and drugs.
Isnt the limitation on where the money is spent an admission that some people are irresponsible? If they are irresponsible to the point where they will not buy food at the expense of their health and their children’s health, maybe they should be wards of the state at a state facility where they will be taken care of properly.
Bron, I think I found your objection. You did not say “increase” the subsidy. I apologize for that inaccuracy.
Bron, here is your opinion:
” We see 40 billion spent on individuals, failing to realize it is nothing more than a business subsidy in the end.
If that is the case then food stamps should be able to be spent on any commercial product at the discretion of the individual”
Maybe I was too harsh. Did I misunderstand the part where you said “it is nothing more than a business subsidy in the end” and you then went on to expand the idea of SNAP benefits be spent on any commercial product?
I admit I found your leap somewhat jaw-dropping but am open to your objection if I mischaracterized your position. I also considered that you were probably mostly pulling our strings, but still, it was a rather shocking (to me) turn of mind.
When I had to apply for food stamps, about 2 years ago, I misstated my income. I called and corrected it, I had missated by about 50$ a month (I get direct deposit so haven’t seen the actual amount in quite some time.) They thanked me and then reduced my food stamps by 100$ a month. I am lucky that I live alone so no one else was impacted by it but it was quite a hit.
Shannon. When people use “I know someone who, I have seen 5 = 8 people do” such and so that isn’t anything more then your own personal experience. A few personal sightings , on either side of an issue, is not sufficient to say well then the whole program is rife with fraud etc, or the people who use it too many of them are deceitful and need to be tested for drugs. Too many people are 1 and 2 paychecks away from needing assistance themselves. Fix the programs if there are problems, but any decent country that cares about its people makes sure that programs are in place to help when needed and hopefully, that the people who need the help are not looked at as bums, thieves, and lazy (and other names I have seen them called,here at times, and elsewhere)
Otteray Scribe,
“where are the stats instead of hyperbolic pearl clutching?”
In the instance I know of for the WIC program from a few years ago, the reason abuse is unknown is because the program did not verify income for the first full year. If someone wanted to continue into a second year, then their income would be verified, otherwise it was just based on their honesty. Perhaps the law has changed.
In the case I know of, I DID try to report it and the above is the answer I got from the social worker. The woman (now a former friend) was getting WIC despite having a full-time working husband with a decent job, she was a SAHM, and they had nice cars and house.
The other one I heard about was an acquaintance of a friend (I do not know if my friend reported it and I did not have enough information to do that duty). The acquaintance would get formula for her baby. She would sell her extra unused cans of formula; this is not allowed as far as I know.
As to the whole food stamps program, I am inclined to keep it but to more heavily guard the purse strings and tighten the requirements to be on it to prevent abuse and a sense of entitlement. Heck, the Founders, I believe, had a program for widows and orphans.
pdm:
that is not what I said. if I am the libertarian of whom you speak.
I said “plenty” of commenters. That is an overstatement and I apologize.
Mike S. – terrific NON ANECDOTAL explanation of what an audit turned up. I sure hate it when someone knows three guys, or a dozen guys, and that proves how the rest of millions think or act.
Also enjoyed the wonky economic facts on how feeding the hungry also feeds Big Ag. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a libertarian stepped in to point out therefore such subsidies have nothing to do with feeding the hungry and we should just increase subsidies in order to drive business. A mind is a wonderous thing to behold!
While considering what may be written by GBs in the future, I would like to read about your take on The Law and Justice in America. In some, maybe many, ways, I think the Turley blog undermines (plus a few decisions by the SC starting in 2000 up to and including voting rights decisions) my old idea of the third branch of our government. Your idea on a post (surely a series) on re-writing the Constitution is a good one, but I wonder if it would be helpful to have a discussion regarding the third branch before going after all three.
Closing thought —
Feeding those who just can’t get enough on their own is really important.
Having a safe, sufficient, inexpensive food supply is really important, too.
But what the hungry need, what this country needs, are a lot of good paying jobs.
What we don’t need is a food system that continues to transfer the wealth of a generation to the top 2% of income makers.
Chris: pee in a filter and see what you get.