Freeloading on the Taxpayer's Dime

15 December 2003 | Andy Obermann

[AndyObermann]

Freeloading on the Taxpayer’s Dime By: Andy Obermann 14 December 2003

The other day I was at the grocery store doing some shopping. I patiently waited in line to purchase a few miscellaneous items. In front of me, a woman, no older than forty, was buying two sodas, two packs of gum, and a personal size bag of potato chips—trivial purchases, a snack perhaps. She proceeded to pull out what appeared to be a credit or debit card to pay for the goods. An unnecessary step for such a menial purchase, I thought. Much to my surprise, however, she was paying for these goods with her Food Stamp benefit card. It struck me as odd, very odd, but nothing was said of it and she moved on.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson passed the first national Food Stamp Act. In it, he outlined a plan to provide adequate nourishment for all American citizens as part of his “Great Society”. In 1976, President Jimmy Carter approved a revision of the law eliminating purchase requirements and simplifying eligibility standards. Thanks to these reductions the present day Food Stamp Program touted a massive 6.5 million recipients and a payout of more than half a billion dollars, approximately $566,569,725, to be exact.

Now, I don’t know or really want to understand what Carter was thinking, but I’d be willing to bet that soda and gum weren’t the types of food good ole’ LBJ had in mind. Aside from the fact that the Constitution affords government no power to enact such a program, one would think that at the very least, the way these monies are spent would be monitored. It’s likely that a significant portion of that half a billion could be used elsewhere if the reckless spending habits of recipients were scrutinized a bit more closely.

Normally, I’m against government intrusion in the lives of everyday people, but for this I’ll definitely make an exception. Why isn’t there some sort of provision in Welfare programs as to how these precious government funds can be spent? Is it really that intrusive to say, “Ok, since you’re getting taxpayer money from the government, we’re going to determine what you’re allowed to buy with it and monitor those purchases?”

An honest proposal would be to restrict Food Stamp purchases to the four basic food groups; grains, meats/poultry, dairy, fruits/vegetables. If this were violated, privileges would be revoked and stores in breech would be reprimanded. What’s wrong with that? Superfluous purchases such as chips and soda don’t provide adequate nourishment anyway, so why not?

A lot of you aren’t going to like this, but I’ll go one further, once a citizen has been on the program for an extended period of time, they should start losing some of the privileges that taxpayers receive. I don’t think that those who are on these programs indefinitely should be allowed to partake in voting. Maybe this would provide a little motivation to stop mooching off the hard-earned profits of others. Think about it, why should they have any say over how tax dollars are spent, when they foot none of the bill? Why should they be able to choose the leaders who shape America’s economic policies, when their earnings will not be used to fund these policies?

Now before all of you start berating me for being insensitive, let me qualify this theory. I’m not talking about citizens receiving disability and unemployment or families that legitimately go on these programs out of need. I’m referring to the chronic abusers—those who have been on these programs for years and years that have not attempted, and do not desire to get off. I’m talking about those who give our social Welfare programs a black eye: the freeloaders.

Look, if a family is in need, if the primary bread-winner has lost his or her job, or something terribly unexpected occurs, these programs can be of great assistance. There is no shame in needing or receiving help when one falls on tough times. That is why these programs were created; they are warranted for these urgent situations. They aren’t, however, meant as a long-term solution.

The government needs to take a serious look at the abuses these sorts of programs incur, and soon. If politicians don’t, perhaps the American taxpayer should look for leaders who will.

[massadvj]

Would you prefer that they didn't have retirement savings, in which case we would be having to support all of their needs?

I'd prefer constitutionally limited government that didn't pander to groups based on their proclivity to vote.

Remember when that was the bedrock of conservative thought?

[massadvj]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Food stamps are only made available to the poor, so of course the average income of food stamp beneficiaries is going to be below the national average.

So I assume you think food stamps would be a good idea so long as everybody qualified for them?

[Stephen Ritter]

"I call shenanigans."

What's his phone number? I've been wanting to call him for some time, now.

[FITZ]

That those that are married or with children are also held to stringent standards.

The standards are not stringent. You can go into stores around here and see more people using food stamps than are using cash, they are allowed to purchase nothing but junk foods, there is often a working man living in the household who stands right in line with the family and buys the beer and cigarettes and lottery tickets with cash. "Common-law marriages" also are very convenient for this --- the parents never legally marry --- the mother can get more food stamps for every baby she produces --- and as long as the babies keep coming, she never will be expected to work.

[Neever]

Most of the folks that I've seen using food stamps have feet too bulbous and swollen because they are fat, so their shoes would be too big for me.

What we call 'poor' in the U.S. is absurd. Perhaps if these folks actually did learn to walk a mile in their own shoes, they would get some get up and go get a job.

[Stephen Ritter]

So, you smell a DU disruptor? I smell something, too, but's it not from DU (though they smell evil enough).

Flashbunny, I came into this thread for one purpose: to show how the system, as poor as it is, helps people who have hit the bottom of American society, through no fault of their own. Rather than do away with it entirely, what I propose is actually rather simple, if hard to implement.

First- The feds get out of the welfare business, permanently,

Second- Welfare is left up to the states, where it rightfully belongs,

Third- Unless profoundly disabled, any person has a 2-year maximum of benefits in any twenty-year period. This provides them with an incentive to find training and work.

Now, if the above marks me as a "lefty", or a "DU Disruptor", so be it. I can't help what people think of me, no matter what the level of their ignorance. No one has addressed a simple issue that I've raised: Why am I am commie, a pinko, a lefty, or a Du Disruptor simply because I disagree on ONE issue? I expect this treatment from the Left. But I though our side was more tolerant of the exercise of free speech.

It IS called Free Republic, isn't it?

And so, on my computer given me by my brother, and through the cable service (including cable modem) which I pay for, I will continue to press on, as it were ...

... though no longer in this thread.

[FITZ]

There are still some jobs that have a mandatory retirement age. Most of the middle class can only afford the high health insurance premiums while they have an income --- retirement is certainly a different situation than some 20-30 year old "poor" person demanding handouts because they don't wish to work.

[Stephen Ritter]

See post 126.

[flashbunny]

I thought you were no longer on this thread...

Well, I see you can afford cable internet service...glad to see our tax dollars help cover your food bills so you can enjoy the 'necessities' in life.
I really wouldn't have a problem with you being on food stamps or whatever the hell it's called now except for your attitude that it's owed to you. That it's none of the business of the people who pay for it to see the money is spent wisely and not on luxuries. If you suckle at the government teat, you don't have right to demand it produces chocolate milk. That's my problem with your position. You seem to think you should get chocolate, strawberry, banana cream and whatever the hell else you want and we should smile and pay for it - because hey, when you were working, you smiled and did the same thing, right?

[Protagoras]

Private Disability Insurance........buy it today!

Excellent point. Poor planning doesn't entitle anyone to suckle at the government teat.

I have the insurance, I have paid for it myself in after tax dollars for many years. I hope I never use it, but I sure won't be putting a gun to anyones head to steal their property because I prioritized incorrectly.

I'm sorry he didn't plan, but not enough to deny my family whatever is left after I take care of the things that need takinbg care of to see that they are taken care of and I'm not the recipient of stolen property.

[Protagoras]

You are a liberal. Despite your wonderful credentials which only prove one thing, you are a self satisfied person who is convinced that some positions you took in your life excuse your support of socialism and crybaby antics.

[freedox]

"So I assume you think food stamps would be a good idea so long as everybody qualified for them?

No, I wasn't implying that at all. I was simply pointing out your faulty reasoning in comparing the average income of food stamp beneficiaries to that of Medicare recipients. One program is available only to the poor, whereas the other is available to all qualifying seniors regardless of income. It stands to reason that the average income of the more inclusive group would be higher.

[hosepipe]

Steve:
Interesting reparte' between you and others... Thanks..

One of those rare events, IMO. Everybody is right... because american socialism is a convoluted mess.. the conversation should rightfully be one also.. No silver bullet will ever kill american socialism, pandora is out of the box.

And the democrats are living in the box and the republicans are remodeling it... for FREE.. The libertarians are tok'ing across the street laughing about the crazy old lady living in the basement(but there is no basement)... Lady Liberty has been screwed so many times shes not a lady anymore and Uncle Sam is the PerP doing it..

Wonder if communism is the political system in hell !... Oh! well... 2nd cup of coffee... cheerio..

[philman_36]

Property ownership wouldn't be a bad prerequisite either.
Ah, the way things, once upon a time, were...

[babyface00]

You seem to good at grousing and marginalizing other people.

When you take your hand out of my pocket, you can lecture me about grousing and marginalizing.

Think of me as one of those "radical individualists" that Al Gore loathes so much.

[babyface00]

This isn't all that difficult.

There are already several "tiers" of voting. You vote for federal representatives, state representatives, county representatives and local municipality representatives. It would be easy enough to determine if you were or were not on public assistance from any one of those localities, and then only prohibit you from voting on issues/representatives that are in whichever locality from which you are receiving assistance.

The only entities that utilize property taxes are counties and municipalities. Not owning property would mean you couldn't vote in those municipalities, but could vote in state and federal elections (if you weren't on public assistance).

Granted, it gets complicated if the local municipality or county collects income taxes and/or sales taxes. However, it might be a good thing for them to have a little more accountability as to what services are funded by what revenue base anyhow.

Even so, should you really be participating in longterm decisions (by voting) in those local areas if you aren't even committed enough to that area to actually own property? If the actions of the local government ruin the area, you can move without any penalty. The property owners are stuck with potentially distressed values - which is likely their major investment.

When I started writing this, I began to think this might be too complicated. But then I thought about my local income tax forms and realized that the local government doesn't seem to have a problem with complicated regulations when it involves taking my money, so keeping funding sources separate should be easy enough for them.

[ampat]

Yeah, but those are the only ones running for office.

[Protagoras]

Yeah, but those are the only ones running for office.

It's true in some cases but who's fault is that?