Food Stamp Millionaires
Thirty-five states have abolished the assets test for getting food stamps writes James Bovard in the WSJ:
Millionaires are now legally entitled to collect food stamps as long as they have little or no monthly income. Thirty-five states have abolished asset tests for most food-stamp recipients. These and similar "paperwork reduction" reforms advocated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are turning the food-stamp program into a magnet for abuses and absurdities.The Obama administration is far more enthusiastic about boosting food-stamp enrollment than about preventing fraud.
...The food-stamp poster boy of 2011 is 59-year-old Leroy Fick. After Mr. Fick won a $2 million lottery jackpot, the Michigan Department of Human Services ruled he could continue receiving food stamps. The Detroit News explained: "If Fick had chosen to accept monthly payments of his jackpot, the winnings would be considered income, according to the DHS. But by choosing to accept a lump sum payment, the winnings were considered 'assets' and aren't counted in determining food stamp eligibility."
Decades after liberals derided Ronald Reagan's reference to a Cadillac-driving "welfare queen," Obama administration policies could easily permit Trust Fund Babies driving Rolls Royces to get free food courtesy of Uncle Sam.
Oh, and don't you just be blaming the Democrats:
As Slate reporter Annie Lowrey wrote for the online magazine last December, President Bush and his food-stamp chief Eric Bost "went on a quiet crusade to expand eligibility, increase enrollment, and reduce stigma around nutrition aid."H.L. Mencken quipped that the New Deal divided America into "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living." The explosion in the number of food-stamp recipients tilts the political playing field in favor of big government. The more people who become government dependents, the more likely that democracy will become a conspiracy against self-reliance.
There should be loads of stigma around "nutrition aid," so people won't be on it.
It's not only wrong economically for people to think it's okay to be on the dole; Bovard is right about the problem of self-reliance. If there's always a handout, why raise a hand to work?
My niece got (maybe still does) free lunches at school because her mom (divorced from my brother) qualifies from some sort of government aid and every other Monday she goes to school straight from her Mom's house. My brother earns way too much to qualify for aid. But it is too much work for the school to keep track of things. If my niece never went to school directly from her Mom's she wouldn't get free lunch. But qualify one day in year and you qualify for the whole year.
The Former Banker at June 24, 2011 12:38 AM
Not only should there be a stigma, there should be significant restrictions. Life on public assistance should be livable, but not comfortable. If you are comfortable, you don't need public assistance, it's as simple as that.
Here are some real-world examples:
- The welfare inspector knocks on your door at 7:00. He asks politely, but you know you must invite him in or else he will be back with a warrant. Wow, you have a new 40" flat-screen TV in your living room. Is that a new iPhone? Clearly, you no longer require financial assistance.
- You are on 100% disability. The welfare inspector follows you and photographs you as you help your friend re-roof his house. Go get a job.
- What, you own a car? You can afford gas, insurance, maintenance? Clearly, you can afford to buy your own food.
These examples are taken from some parts of Europe, where accepting public assistance is tied to a substantial loss of privacy. Welfare inspectors can inspect your finances, visit your home without notice, covertly follow you to see what you actually do all day. Don't like it? Well, you could always get off welfare...
a_random_guy at June 24, 2011 1:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/24/food_stamp_mill.html#comment-2299986">comment from a_random_guyYou're on welfare? You don't get an iPhone.
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2011 1:24 AM
Well now your cell phone is a right:
<Sarcasm>They have a valid point -- Without a cell phone how can you sell your "Nutrition Aid" stamps for crack?</Sarcasm>
I have no problem helping people get on their feet. I have an issue with the 16 year old girl getting pregnant and expecting the tax payers to fund her spawn, for the second and third generation.
The dependency class are parasites sucking the wealth out of this country.
Jim P. at June 24, 2011 5:25 AM
How do those welfare types get the money for their brand new cadillac escalades(which are probably on lease) and their expensive sneakers and their expensive cigarettes? Is it by some income which is not reported? (like money from hooking or drug dealing or by driving a taxi)?
Redrajesh at June 24, 2011 5:34 AM
How would one get a job without a phone? It doesn't have to be a cell phone, but nobody's going to look under bridges to hire the rag man.
MarkD at June 24, 2011 6:14 AM
People on welfare should be drug and alcohol tested weekly, and food stamps should be good for nothing but meat, veggies, dairy, bread, and oatmeal. Store brand only. No convienince foods.
Nothing infuriates me like the woman in front of me in the checkout line who whips out a Lone Star Card to pay for her Chee-tohs, chocolate milk, Night Hawk dinners, and Danimals yogurt, then pays for a case of beer with cash. There are certain stores I can't shop at because I always end up so pissed off.
ahw at June 24, 2011 7:45 AM
...and we were poor enough to qualify for free lunches when I was a kid. My parents never enrolled us because to them, it would've been shameful.
ahw at June 24, 2011 7:49 AM
Reducing or eliminating asset tests does increase the number of people eligible for food aid, but in the current circumstances I think it's a good policy decision. Unemployment is over 9% and the median time to find a new job is over 6 months. There are millions of people out of work who previously had solid middle class lives and have some assets, the largest of which is a mortgage which may very well be underwater.
If you believe the economy can come back and that there will be jobs in a reasonable timeframe, it makes sense to provide temporary assistance for people who have fallen on hard times. The alternative is to force even more distressed asset sales which will depress home prices even further and set back the standard of living of the unemployed for decades.
It's true that some freeloaders exist and some people will attempt to scam the system, regardless of what type of system is in place. However, right now 25% of all children in the US are on some type of federal food aid (food stamps, WIC, AFDC, etc). Limiting access to this food aid might very well reduce some fraud, but it would definitely reduce the food security of millions of children.
Dissenting View at June 24, 2011 8:26 AM
I confess I did take them when I was briefly unemployed despite having significant assets from family wealth and my previous job. I paid so much taxes on my assets, I figured I might as well learn about the program and get back what the idiotic government took from me. Yes, I did use them at Whole Foods to buy things like organic chocolate and caviar. I don't see how it was any worse than middle class kids receiving thousands of dollars a year in federal aid to get useless English degrees.
It's absurd how we can afford this program, but we can't afford to feed children in our schools non-garbage foods. Children don't have a choice about what the are fed or how responsible they are about money, adults do. Food stamps don't serve truly vulnerable populations well. Poor women use them to buy their children crap. Mentally ill or disabled poor people usually can't get them at all because of all the paperwork and it's not like most schizophrenics can cook anyway. Let's get rid of food stamps and re-direct the money to healthy meals at schools and community centers for children and incapacitated populations.
Melissa at June 24, 2011 8:52 AM
Taxing income is stupid and counter-productive.
Taxing wealth, on the other hand, makes much more sense.
Someone making money to save for a house gets clobbered, while someone making a stipend off a real estate empire gets a pass.
Not good.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 24, 2011 9:37 AM
The Former Banker- Actually, even if the school did know, it probably wouldn't care. At my High School, we are highly encouraged to apply for the free or reduced lunch program because the school gets funding for each student who qualifies. We were even told to fill out the form whether or not the paper said we qualified.
FutureDarkLady at June 24, 2011 10:07 AM
There are several programs and agencies that ought to be sunsetted, to see what happens.
Food stamps strikes me as one. Let's sunset it and see if we indeed get starving Americans, enough to warrant action. If so, okay, re-instate it.
It would be nice to cut military outlays in half, and see the ramifications. After 10 years, what would they be? Nothing (as I suspect). Then fine, keep the cuts.
BOTU at June 24, 2011 10:41 AM
I don't care what people buy with food stamps-cheetos, caviar, or bananas, it all costs us the same. Most people on them should not be. And the people who get them frequently get too much. Someone with the number of kids I have can get almost $900 a month. I don't spend NEAR that on our groceries.
I also don't think we ought to be giving people with assets food stamos jst so they can keep their assets. That's what assets are FOR, security when you need money!
Housing prices need to fall lower. Prices were ridiculous. Sorry if people lose money on their house. People lose money on stocks all the time, you don't see us trying to stop that from happening. Investments can fall, they don't always grow. Deal with it.
momof4 at June 24, 2011 11:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/24/food_stamp_mill.html#comment-2300658">comment from momof4My friend C. gets piles of vegetables at the 99 cent store.
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2011 11:09 AM
Not saying right or wrong, but the lack of an asset test is that way because of elderly folks who have little or no income, but whose house, which they bought for $40,000 in 1968, is worth $700,000 today.
Big asset but little income.
Ken at June 24, 2011 1:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/24/food_stamp_mill.html#comment-2301078">comment from KenNot saying right or wrong, but the lack of an asset test is that way because of elderly folks who have little or no income, but whose house, which they bought for $40,000 in 1968, is worth $700,000 today. Big asset but little income.
Should they maybe -- gasp! -- move to a condo, and live off their asset rather than living off the rest of us?
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2011 2:20 PM
As a new lawyer I got some training from a legal aid office, and their book advised how to help welfare recipients keep their benefits if they suddenly got a windfall. A lump-sum payment was considered "income" at least back in the 1990s...anyway, the client dropped off welfare for a month or two, took the windfall, then get back on.
This trick goes way back, like tricks the Elder Law attorneys use to get Medicaid coverage for nursing homes.
No I never helped anyone this way, and quickly got disgusted with the clientele.
jeanne at June 24, 2011 3:53 PM
Why bother to turn up for work if one have to work with a horrible suffocating totalitarian culture or cope with lazy, bossy, incompetent people or abusive people?
That is why work should be given to those who want to work the right way, contribute the right way in a right environment and not to those who just want to milk the benefits as socalled workers.
WLIL at June 24, 2011 7:44 PM
"Nothing infuriates me like the woman in front of me in the checkout line who whips out a Lone Star Card to pay for her Chee-tohs, chocolate milk, Night Hawk dinners, and Danimals yogurt, then pays for a case of beer with cash."
Here's my plan:
"Food stamps" are pretty much computerized anyway, so the way it works is... you can buy a limited number of food items only. Canned and fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, poultry, fish and bread, for example. The store already has all their prices in their computer system, so you will get credit for the least expensive version of the item you're buying, and make up the difference in cash for the premium brand, if that's what you chose.
No chips, snacks, ice cream or soda pop- the program is to keep people from starving in the streets, remember.
And if you buy any of that stuff (or beer, cigarettes or lottery tickets) with cash after checking out your food stamp order, the clerk has the right to report this to the Food Stamp Police, and get your food stamp credit card repossessed.
Not Sure at June 24, 2011 7:54 PM
Heres my problem with the food stamp program, out here in AZ fast food joints can now accept them.
And gas stations. Why should my tax dollars go so someone else can spend $5 on a bag of potato chips in a gas sttion that would cost them $2 in a grocery store?
Why should my tax dollar go so they can spend $2 on a 1 liter bottle o soda becuase they dont want to buy the cheaper two liter bottle because it inst refrigerated?
Why the fuck are they allowed to spend food stams on soda pop, potato chips and cany bars anyway?
lujlp at June 24, 2011 7:57 PM
"Heres my problem with the food stamp program, out here in AZ fast food joints can now accept them."
It's like that in Idaho, too. Not many things get me as pissed off as watching people buy Haagen-Dasz ice cream at the mini-mart with their food stamp credit card.
I'm usually a pretty "live-and-let-live" kind of guy and don't generally stoop to criticizing the things in other peoples' shopping carts, so here's the bottom line- I'll stop paying attention to what you're buying when you stop taking money from me to buy that stuff.
Deal? I'd guess not...
Not Sure at June 24, 2011 8:55 PM
Again, why does it matter WHAT they are using your money to buy? It's the same amount of YOUR money gone, whether it's fruit or chips. The issue you should have is that they have your money in the first place.
Old people with houses worth a lot should sell them. We should NOT be in the business of keeping people in their houses. That's bullcrap.
momof4 at June 25, 2011 7:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/24/food_stamp_mill.html#comment-2302447">comment from momof4Right on, momof4. If I have to pay for my existence, and can't afford to eat, and I have a $700K house, the first thing I'm going to do is downscale.
Amy Alkon at June 25, 2011 7:33 AM
momof4 I agree, I am willing to say that some people do need help, and I'd rather the $20 the spend be spent on real ood that can be used to make a couple of meals for a familly as opposed to a couple of days worth of junk food impulse buys at a gas station
lujlp at June 25, 2011 7:48 AM
lujlp wrote "Why the fuck are they allowed to spend food stams on soda pop, potato chips and cany bars anyway?"
I can't answer that question. But I read a news article about this oddity about food stamps. It turns out that major American food companies vigorously oppose efforts to prohibit users of food stamps from buying junk food with them.
Iconoclast at June 25, 2011 6:36 PM
If the purpose of abolishing the asset test is to help people who have recently lost their jobs or otherwise fallen on hard times, then I'm all for that. That's what food stamps and other forms of welfare SHOULD be for--to temporarily assist people while they get back on their feet. Accumulating assets is a pretty good sign that you're a contributing, taxpaying member of society, as opposed to someone who just wants to live off of the government for the rest of their lives. Someone in this position should have every right to benefit from the programs that their taxes helped fund.
As far as millionaires going on food stamps--yeah right. The example used just goes to show how rare this is-how many people on food stamps do you think actually win the lottery each year? Of all the forms of welfare fraud we need to crack down on, I'd say this ranks pretty low on the list.
Shannon at June 26, 2011 11:12 AM
Re: "People on welfare should be drug and alcohol tested weekly, and food stamps should be good for nothing but... "
In principle I agree. The problem is the expense of extra bureaucrats regarding the former, which goes against public desires for less gov't overhead. Regarding prohibitions on types of food, on the black market food stamps no doubt can be exchanged for $$.
Iconoclast at June 26, 2011 5:02 PM
Regarding prohibitions on types of food, on the black market food stamps no doubt can be exchanged for $$
Yea, but if some idiot want to trade his $30 dollars worth of groceries for a carton of cig thats on him, also i/whe hes found out charg him with racketeering and federal money laundering charges
lujlp at June 26, 2011 5:10 PM
I unfortunately grew up in a single parent household where we needed food stamps to survive. My mother had a hard time getting work because she was forced to drop out of high school at age 16 to care for her ailing mother and 6 younger siblings. My grandfather had passed away years before. I vowed that I would never need government assistance. I graduated from high school, got a good job, and attended college full time. Unlike alot of my friends, I got married and did not have my first child until I was 25. I was divorced three and a half years ago and the only job I could get was working graveyard shift for $10 an hour with no medical benefits. My ex chose to not sign up for medical benefits with his job which left me with no other option but to get CHIP for my children. I penny pinched and went without things for myself to avoid needing any other kind of assistance until April when my ex and his new wife decided that he should QUIT his job and work for her father getting paid cash to avoid paying child support. I was left with no other option but to apply for medicaid and food stamps so that my children would be fed and have medical care. I do have a car that I make payments on as well as pay for gas and insurance but without that car I would not be able to get to my job. Not everyone who gets food stamps is cheating the government. Not every one who gets food stamps uses them to get junk food. I clip coupons, I make sure I buy things on sale, I provide my children with well rounded meals. I don't like being on food stamps. I hate the way people look at me in the grocery store. But I am willing to endure whatever I have to so that my children will never have to go hungry, never have to sit in the dark because the electricity was cut off, never have to go to someone else's house to bathe because the water or gas was turned off.
Gina at July 19, 2011 12:26 AM
Leave a comment