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.

[Stephen Ritter]

"So are you saying there are to be no restrictions on how you spend "your" money on food. Really? What about liquor? Cigarettes? That OK?"

Don't drink. Don't smoke. Also, when it's transferred to me, it IS my money. (However, I suppose that's another example of my attitude which, as you've so elegantly stated in another post, "sucks".)

However, for the sake of argument (and this one is really getting tiresome), I can spend food stamp dollars on whatever foodstuffs I want ...

... until the law is changed ...

... so, if you don't like it, CHANGE THE LAW!!

[Protagoras]

Been here almost a whole week and still haven't found out that your BS doesn't play here.

[Stephen Ritter]

"Protagoras was known by many as the "Father of debate" because he taught that there were two sides to every question."

That's why my side is being tolerated so well?

"And perhaps your inability to understand why your post to me was pathetic explains your attitudes and thoughts. Certainly your pitiful attempt to change the subject to my screen name is telling."

Pitiful? Pathetic? Inability to understand?

Since you decided not to answer my question, I guess some more "ad hominems" were in order, correct?

[Stephen Ritter]

"Been here almost a whole week and still haven't found out that your BS doesn't play here."

I departed from the party line on one issue, and now my arguments are BS. Interesting. Sounds like the DU.

Shall we continue to flame each other, and engage in one ad hominem attack after another? Or could we perhaps assume that the other is at least honest in the argument, and start again from there?

[Protagoras]

I predict that you won't last two weeks before the site owner boots you out. He doesn't like liberals coming in to disrupt the site.

"Toleration" of arguments is a liberal concept. You are entitled to your liberal nonsensical opinions but I am not obligated to "tolerate" them by agreeing or even giving them a second thought.

BTW, your screen name will be "tolerated" real well around here. LOL

[technochick99]

Thanks for a different perspective on things! I was reading a newspaper with a column on the working poor. It spoke of a dinner they were having - polish sausage and potato chips. I wondered why they couldn't have bought a bag of potatoes or something that would last and be much cheaper.

[Protagoras]

Sounds like the DU.

I'm guessing you have first hand knowledge about that site. What was the screen name you used before you were booted last time?

[Stephen Ritter]

"Just out of curiosity, are the taxpayers also paying for your health care?"

I get it, now. That's our way out of the welfare crisis in America. Let 'em all die, right?

This is why the Left gets away with calling everyone on the Right insensitive, uncompassionate, uncaring, and so forth. It's also why so many GOP politicians have to play the Left's game ...

... because there's people out in fly-over country implying that the unhealthy poor should go ahead and die.

Alright, answer me this question. I once made over $100,000 per year. After disability hit, and after all assets were sold and all of our resources were exhausted, just exactly how is one to pay for an $800 per month prescription drug cost?

[MineralMan]

"Thanks for a different perspective on things! I was reading a newspaper with a column on the working poor. It spoke of a dinner they were having - polish sausage and potato chips. I wondered why they couldn't have bought a bag of potatoes or something that would last and be much cheaper."

Good question. Where I live, a lot of hispanic families get food stamps. Not illegals, but actual citizens. I was behind one such family in the checkout line last weekend. What do you suppose was in their cart?

Well, you might be surprised. There was a 10 pound bag of dry beans. Another 10 pound bag of rice. Flour, cornmeal, three 36 packs of tortillas. Four chickens. Three gallons of milk. Assorted vegetables, mostly tomatoes, onions, peppers, oranges, lemons, and other such. A butt roast of beef, a large chunk of pork, each probably 5 pounds.

No sodas. No chips. No frozen meals. Nothing of the sort.

This was a case where the mother of the family was buying basic foodstuffs and, I have no doubt, going to stretch them until there was nothing left.

She paid with food stamps. I was pleased.

[Stephen Ritter]

"I'm guessing you have first hand knowledge about that site. What was the screen name you used before you were booted last time?"

I lasted at DU approximately 15 minutes after I posted my opinion about illegal immigration. I didn't expect to last there long, anyway. Several of us were trying to get an average time before the "boot" fell. For the 6 of us, it averaged about 23 minutes!

[Protagoras]

This is why the Left gets away with calling everyone on the Right insensitive, uncompassionate, uncaring, and so forth.

Precisely as you have done all over this thread. Who the hell do you think you are fooling? You are a lefty.

After disability hit, and after all assets were sold and all of our resources were exhausted, just exactly how is one to pay for an $800 per month prescription drug cost?

Oh boo hoo hoo. Oh the inhumanity of it all!!!

The correct answer for the left is to steal it from other citizens.

[Stephen Ritter]

You have certainly earned your sophistry, Protagoras.

When you grow up, we'll talk some more ...

[flashbunny]

So, stepehen, is your internet service free as well? Do you own your own computer???

[Protagoras]

You will last longer here lefty. Because they won't discover you that soon. But sure as I'm here, you will be discovered.

I don't mind if you stay BTW, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But the site owner conciders all your positions to be already decided and doesn't like to waste the bandwidth debating people who are only here to disrupt.

Like I said, I don't agree with that policy, I like exposing the commies.

[freedox]

I'm not sure just how you came up with that interpretation of my response. My question about health care had to do with your assertion that nobody had the right to tell you what to eat. If the taxpayers are paying your grocery bills and your health care bills, I would say we have every right to be concerned about the quality of your nutrition.

[Jotmo]

Everyone here knows the law allows you to have that money. No one has argued that with you. The entire point of this discussion is that weather that law is consistent with "conservative" principles.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the two ideas.

You've said you're "entitled" to this money, and that indicates to us that your "conservatism" is suspect.

[Protagoras]

She paid with food stamps. I was pleased.

The best that could happen out of a bad situation.

[cupcakes]

No kidding and imagine how handy that quarter of a mil taken by force would have been to Mr. Ritter had he been able to funnel it off for his own benefit.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"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?"

My recollection is that the real motivation for this and the Food for Peace programs was that government warehouses were bulging with food bought under farm support programs.

[AndyObermann]

Thanks for the great response to this one guys. You've all raised valid points. The problem is, as someone already said, this woman was not buying these "luxury" goods with her money. She was buying them with your money! I had a little debate with a lib. friend of mine today. (Background--he is fairly wealthy, etc...) He likened this situation to splurging. When he and his wife splurge, they go on a vacation--this may be this woman's splurge (chips/soda). My response was: What gives her the right to spluge with the assisstance that taxpayers give her? She shouldn't spend our money for her extras.

If you are using my money for anything, I want some say over how you're going to spend it. Bottom line.

-Andy