Many consider welfare in general to be a "detriment" to taxpayers, particularly those who does not directly reap its benefits. Others believe that as good citizens, those of us who are more financially capable are obligated to assist those whose capacity to make ends meet is substantially more difficult. I believe that both points of view have validity. As someone who has worked in retail for four years, I have assisted many customers who utilized various services that we group together as "welfare", from food stamps to WIC checks. WIC checks, due to their stringent regulation, will not be discussed further in this blog post. My experience with customers who use food stamps has enlightened me with regard to two important points; as a service they are essential and cannot be rescinded, however, there are subtle issues with the system that must be reformed.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known colloquially as "food stamps", is meant to assist those whose ability to pay for food is difficult. Although it is a federal program, states have the means to create their own programs, based on criteria of their choice. Right now, I am on the website http://www.gettingfoodstamps.org/SNAPCalculator/index.cfm with the intention to assess 1) the criteria that is used to determine eligibility and 2) the extent to which it can be guaranteed that the system is not abused. I am told from the start that the four criteria which may determine my eligibility are the people in my house, assets, income, and household expenses.
The United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service requires that households meet income tests before they will receive any services. Families must achieve a gross monthly income within 130% of the Federal Poverty Line, and a net monthly income within 100% of the Federal Poverty Line. Gross income refers to a household's income before any deductions are made. Once a family has demonstrated that they meet the income test, they are given an allotment (the amount of benefits they are eligible to receive, which varies depending on the number of people in their household). Special consideration is given for households in which one is disabled or elderly (60 years of age or above).
So now that you have a general idea of how the SNAP program works, it's time to get down to business here. What items are allowed to be purchased using your food stamps? The following items are not eligible for purchase;
- Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes, or tobacco
- Pet foods, paper products, soaps, and household supplies
- Vitamins and medicines
- Hot food
- Food that will be eaten in the store
My issue is with the following - as defined by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 - "Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items. Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items."
The purpose of the SNAP program is to provide individuals of limited financial capability with essential nutritional items. I fail to see how vitamins and medicines are less essential than soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream. "Luxury items" (a term used in the USDA's requirements to describe these items) in my opinion, do not have a place on a government-subsidized program. It does not sit well with me to think that my tax money is going to contribute to the purchase of food whose consumption will do no more than clog arteries, rot teeth, and contribute substantially to the obesity rates. I do not think it is fair that mine as well as many others' hard-earned money is going to literally lead to others' demise. I can say, from my experiences behind the register, that many people do pay for an abundance of unhealthful items on their food stamps. I remember one woman who bought a large cake, a giant bag of Oreo Cookies, some ice cream, and more soda cans than I could count - there was not one nutritional item amongst these luxuries.
Like the WIC program, there should be stringent limitations as to what one can buy using their food stamps. If I am subsidizing you, I expect that you will buy healthful items that will benefit your health, especially considering that when you get sick, I (and many others) will be subsidizing your health care. The lovely woman who purchased every unhealthful item I can think of, then left the store. I made sure to look and see what kind of car she got into and to my horror, she got into a Mercedes-Benz. I kid you not.
Unfortunately, that was not an isolated incident. I do not wish to paint every welfare recipient with the same brush. I fully acknowledge, and respect, the many individuals who are in true need of assistance and I have no issue with helping them in any way I can. But if you use my taxes to buy junk food and then drive off in a Mercedes-Benz, I have no respect for you. I cannot fathom how an individual of limited financial capability can spend ridiculous amounts of money on luxury items and then use government subsidy to purchase their food with a clear conscience. But then again, it is not my place to judge these individuals. The lack of personal responsibility inherent to today's society disappoints me, but it is what it is.
My proposition for how to reform the SNAP program;
1) Base eligibility not only on the amount of money a family makes, but HOW they spend their money. Do not give benefits to a family who uses their limited income on fancy vehicles and a plasma TV when that money should be contributing to their essential needs (food, in this case).
2) Set stringent limitations on items that can be purchased. Subtract unhealthful items from the list. Subsidizing the purchase of cookies, ice cream, and cakes will lead to other necessary subsidies for these individuals... their hospital visits and surgeries when they become ill. And I will have zero sympathy for them when that time comes.
OR
3) limit the number of "luxury" food items that can be purchased at a time. There is a difference between one cookie with your lunch, and boxes after boxes of cookies.
I am a supporter of the SNAP program. I am not a supporter of those who misuse it.
