New Hampshire Representative Timothy Horrigan (D-Durham) is outraged over what he describes as “a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.” The violation? People on public assistance cannot use EBT cards to buy guns. He is objecting to legislation barring the use of EBT cards for this purpose and denying people on welfare to hunt and defend themselves with guns.
Any person who receives public assistance is prohibited from using an EBT card or cash obtained with an EBT card to gamble or to purchase tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, lottery tickets, firearms, or adult entertainment.
Horrigan presumably wants the reference to “firearms” deleted.
Horrigan does not appear to be a gun advocate but rather believes that welfare recipients should be able to use the money without such limitations. He simply used the second amendment argument to make this point. He opposed the two Bush campaigns and has a low rating by the NRA. His website also notes that he is looking for a job.
Putting aside the firearms issue, do you believe that public assistance recipients should be able to use their cards like cash for any purchase?
Annie and Paul:
Since issues that affect kids are especially important to me, I have followed in detail the caloric restrictions at school cafeterias, imposed by the Healthy/Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010. In exchange for selling schools food at a discount, the schools had to limit fat, salt, and calories. Some of the healthy choices were so foreign to students, such as quinoa, that they were just thrown them away. So many kids were going hungry from this “Hunger Free” act that they filmed “We Are Hungry” which went viral on You Tube. Because what the act failed to take into account is that the caloric needs for a sedentary, overweight 16 year old are vastly different than those of a kid who plays basketball, football, and track. And that hunger was causing behavioral and discipline problems. Talk about a well-intentioned program that failed badly…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-to-relax-healthy-school-lunch-rules-due-to-student-complaints/
Again, the lesson here is to keep the eye on the goal – healthy, hunger free kids, and not on the means to get there. Because you will hear the trumpet sounded that Republicans killed the Healthy/Hunger Free Act of 2010. And if never get past the headline, you will have absolutely no idea that it was halted because KIDS WERE GOING HUNGRY because of it.
Annie:
Some states already have benefits programs that are not cash based. For example, there is the WIC program in CA. From the WIC Works website:
“WIC is a federally-funded health and nutrition program for women, infants, and children. WIC helps families by providing checks for buying healthy supplemental foods from WIC-authorized vendors, nutrition education, and help finding healthcare and other community services. Participants must meet income guidelines and be pregnant women, new mothers, infants or children under age five. In California, 84 WIC agencies provide services locally to over 1.45 million participants each month at over 650 sites throughout the State.”
The program is not perfect, but this, and other programs offered throughout the US, can give us ideas on how to try a new approach with benefits.
I care about feeding the hungry, not about how it gets done. I am more attached to the goal of no child going to be hungry, than I am to any particular program. If we all felt that way, we could see real progress.
I am willing to try different ways to help the poor, but I want the flexibility to try a new approach if something is not working. Throwing more money at a flawed system is not innovative. I do not resent the money; I resent its being wasted.
they’ll probably make it where you can buy a gun with food stamps but not bullets.
how can you tell someone from new hampshire invented the tooth brush?
because if they were from anywhere else it would be called a teeth brush.
Feynman – so you do have problems with this system, too?
And my problem with free meals at school is that they are going to affluent kids, too. Do you not have a problem with that?
Karen – technically, unless the school is feeding everyone for free, only those students who qualify as Title I students get the free lunch.
Annie – it does not give them enough calories to get through the afternoon. Healthy or not, and you know this as a nurse, proper nutrition is what is important. And each student has different nutritional needs, but with Michelle’s program it is one size fits all.
It’s healthy food. Why call it crap?
I don know Feynman, did they disappear again? Hey what’s goin’ on here?!
The free meals program in schools would ensure that a least the kids won’t go hungry. They’d get two meals for certain. Also feeding programs for kids during summer at neighborhood centers would help.
Annie,
where are alll your comments that were released from spam?
Karen,
No. I think they should be used for food. I also fully support the free lunch program. I thought you had problems with that program as well. I guess that’s why I wasn’t surprised about your concerns about the food stamp problem.
And the only obvious path the Republicans choose is to slash the program.
Leaving even more children hungry.
*sigh*
I am a supporter of the free lunch program and free breakfast where available. However, with the crap that Michelle Obama is trying to force down their throats, I think I would slash the funding under the current regime.
Any ideas on a different approach that would prevent fraud?
Annie – back in the day, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the welfare programs gave surplus government food to the poor. The amount was based on the size of the household. They had the best cheese and peanut butter, ever.
Annie – if there is a system, it can be gamed. There is no way to completely get rid of fraud, just cut it down as much as possible.
Personally, I care about results. If we implement a plan that is supposed to feed the hungry, but it ends up being used for other things, and people, including children, still go hungry, my response is to change our approach. It seems intuitively obvious not to continue on the same path.
Feynman:
You posted, “Karen finds several problems with the current benefits system. Quelle surprise.”
Just to clarify, do you believe that benefits should be used however the recipient sees fit, including tattoos, TVs, strip clubs, drugs, and alcohol, regardless if they have kids who go hungry?
I admit I am surprised that you do not see a problem with this.
What else can you do with an EBT card? Run a pizza parlor? I’m getting lots of ideas!!!!!!
Karen finds several problems with the current benefits system.
Quelle surprise.
Hi Darren:
There are several problems with the current benefits system.
1) Benefits are used for drugs, alcohol, tattoos, strip clubs, big screen TVs, and then the recipients, and sometimes their children, still go hungry or without shelter. Increasing benefits does not address this problem.
2) The intent of the law is to provide basic needs like food, water, shelter, etc. The taxpayers agreed to help the poor with basic needs; they did not agree to pay for a big screen TV or for drugs, alcohol, etc.
It certainly poses a problem on how to remedy. We certainly need to change our approach so that benefits are used for specific, approved things. There are already models in some states that can give us some ideas.
What the recipients do with their own money, which is not provided by taxpayers, is their own business.
Allen – that’s my favorite scene from the Crocodile Dundee movies. “That’s not a knife. This is a knife…Ahhh, they’re just some kids having fun.”
Whatever the product/service the EBT card is restricted to it does not mean the beneficiary will abstain from buying those items using other means.
Also since a firearm is a legal item for most adults over 21 to own it essentially is no different than a large screen TV for the purpose of a legally purchasable item to someone not using an EBT card. Can the EBT card be used to purchase cable TV with any channel except the adult channels? So why are firearms and porn restricted? Moral and political issues I suspect.
The same can be said about the booze, smokes, and gambling yet I will concede and agree these three are addictive mostly in the first two and the last really is a waste of taxpayer money and it becomes essentially free money having little risk to gamble away.
Yet, the state is within its perogative to restrict it to what it desires as these are benefits and not something that is guaranteed to a person through constitutional means it is one of legislation. It is legislation that provides this to people so it can be subject to conditions as the legislature desires.
From a pragmatic point of view how is the state really going to easily enforce this regarding the cash used from an EBT withdrawal by the beneficiary? To assume that a beneficiary who has a drive or addiction to alcohol, tobacco, or pornography is going to completely abstain from buying those items with cash is unrealistic. If the only source of money the beneficiaries have is the EBT cash that would be easier to prove, but if from some reason the state social services department learned the beneficiary recently purchased a firearm and tried to claim this was illegal, the beneficiary could claim she bought it with money a relative gave her as a gift or another cash source.
I don’t think the state necessarily will have the resources to go after an individual for on occasional purchase as the numbers of beneficiaries are so large. It is easier certianly to go after merchants who abuse the system.
Darren – I think the EBT cards are restricted to certain item codes. That is only my understanding. When there were food stamps, I know that there was a certain amount of fraud and periodically a store would be prevented from taking the stamps. Most of them were ringing up alcohol and tobacco products as food. Or buying the stamps at a discount for cash.
David Gray:
“However if you don’t like the fact that EBT cash benefits can be used for virtually any non-vice purchase, then change the program into one that has a restricted list of approved items that can be obtained with a benefit card (not cash) ala California’s WIC program, don’t simply attempt to lump in firearms with vice because you don’t like guns.”
I agree with you. Instead of making a list of restricted items, make a list of approved items, and stop giving cash.
Can knife stamps be far behind?
A gun and a knife in every hand, a chicken in every pot, a hummer in every garage.
If the plunder barons would give us back our money we could abide like the dood.