Skip to comments.Food Stamps - The Black Hole You Enter and Never Exit
Posted on 10/08/2012 5:44:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
Have you heard the rumor that the number of food stamp recipients has increased during President Obamas term from 28.2 million to 46.6 million? Have you heard that in only three years, the annual cost of the program, which was already astronomical at $35 billion, has soared to $76 billion? It certainly has been the talk of the town (if not the campaign), but does anyone really know how we got to this state of affairs? That is what I set out to discover.
Even the most basic details about the program seem surreal. Why in the world is this welfare program administered through the Agriculture Department? We have been arguing about agriculture subsidies since the beginning of time, yet a program that really has nothing to do with farming or ranching now swallows up most of the budget. Just the idea that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is running a $75 billion welfare program gives you a perspective of how screwed up this situation has become.
I contacted the House Agriculture Committee spokesperson, Tamara Hinton, to get some answers. What is the amount of attrition for the program, I asked. Given that the program has grown by 18.4 million participants in the past three years, is there anyone who has stopped receiving benefits? She stated that the USDA claims that the average duration of benefits is 9 months. I pointed out that if that were true, then about 160 million people have been on the program in the last three years.
It turns out that Katherine Bradley of the Heritage Foundation describes a much more plausible scenario. She claims that people participating in the program now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) stay on it for an average of eight full years. When I challenged Ms. Hinton on the accuracy of the Heritage study, she informed me that the program is administered through the states, who only report the net change in the number of recipients, and not how many people have entered or left the program.
So nobody knows how many people if any - are leaving the program. President Obamas campaign incessantly reminds us that he has created 4.5 million new jobs in his term a truly dubious claim that is credible only if you dont count the 4.3 million jobs lost in the first 13 months of his term. But lets pretend that hes correct and that there are indeed 4.5 million new jobs. Then how come there are 18.4 million new people receiving SNAP benefits, and why has the yearly cost risen by an additional $37 billion? If people are finding jobs, then participation should be going down, and so it is only rational to come to the conclusion that this program has become a black hole where people keep signing up, but no one is signing off.
This occurs because the states, who administer SNAP, have every reason to maximize the number of people enrolled in their program. In simple terms, it brings more money into the state at no cost. There used to be a relatively stringent enrollment procedure to obtain SNAP benefits, but this was superseded by a provision in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act called categorical eligibility. The idea was to cut down on administrative costs by eliminating duplicate financial tests in order to receive benefits from related programs. The problem is that the Clinton Administration left Bush another ticking time bomb (like the redo of the banking law and the infusion of $1 trillion in the home mortgage market with lower standards) when he changed the regulations in 2000 to make it easier for people to get SNAP without providing financial info. Today, it seems that to qualify for the programs, all you need to provide is a note from your mother.
Ms. Hinton told me about one consequence of this policy that is almost criminal. Apparently, if you qualify for benefits under the Low Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (LIHEAP), you automatically become eligible for SNAP. Because payments made to LIHEAP recipients can be of any amount no matter how small states have figured out that they can attract billions of dollars in federal SNAP funding at a cost of thousands of dollars in LIHEAP stipends. Sure enough, there are 16 states and the District of Columbia who pay people less than $5 under LIHEAP just to qualify them for SNAP. You could say no one is watching the store; but, in fact, someone is watching and stealing the Federal government blind.
It gets even more stunning. You would think that the federal government would encourage the states to cleanse its rolls. You know those three favorite words of politicians waste, fraud and abuse. Instead the Obama Administration has set up a bounty program. They have a $50 million bonus program to motivate states to get more people on SNAP. The funds the winners get are not restricted to be used on the states SNAP, but can be used for any purpose deemed appropriate by state officials. Otherwise, get more residents signed up on SNAP and get money to fix up facilities at the state park or redo offices of the members of the state legislature
As part of the new Agriculture bill, the House has approved a partial restructuring of the SNAP program. The problem is that the Obama Administration, along with the Democratic Senate, wants to make it even easier for people to get SNAP benefits under the categorical eligibility exemption. While the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled during the lame duck session, the bigger picture is that the entire program desperately needs a wholesale restructuring.
It may sound quaint, but, when I was growing up, Americans thought that you used food stamps only if you were really, really poor. We wouldnt even shop at stores that took them as payments. Now you can just swipe a card indistinguishable from any other debit card and voila! youre just like any other shopper. Upscale stores accept SNAP payments without even blinking. With almost 45 million people receiving food stamps, a retailer would have to be crazy to pass up the income stream.
Its no wonder that theres such a deep divide in this election as to the future of this country and whether the current administration is heading us in the right direction. Yes, folks, we have a big decision in front of us. Do you want to become a food stamp nation?
A guy I know with seven kids went on SNAP for a month after he lost his job.
He has spent a year trying to get the cards to stop. He started using the card to buy food for a local food bank, as they keep hounding him to use it.
My rassiss dog whistle alerted me.
I ended up unemployed and had a wife and five kids back in the early 90’s. We got food stamps for about two months and I swore I would NEVER do it again. And to this day I never have. It was embarrassing going into a store and using them. Of course back then we had the books of coupons and not the cards like today.
From what I’ve read the Constitution says “promote the general welfare” not provide it.
When I tried to “leave the program” some time back, the case worker said it was not permitted, unless my child’s Medicaid benefits were also cancelled. “You have to be removed from everything.” I was now getting Soc Security, so was ineligible for Medicaid myself, but a child (even above 18) remained eligible (though employed!)
It took persistence and a call on the state office, where a state worker personally told me it was the first time he’d ever cancelled food stamps without cancelling other benefits.
Along the way, there were also people who wrongly assumed that my child needed medical attention of some kind, and when told the child in question was an able-bodied person with no health problems and outstanding academic ability, they also faulted me for depriving such a paragon of the chance to attend college. (Guess where that money would have come from?)
The mindset is that fixed in government service. You let your kid work to pay for food? What’s wrong with you!!
That is correct and that is a huge difference, but the left is to ignorant to get it
Wards of the state.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
The MINDSET of the government worker is to ‘spend the money’ and ‘grow the program’ and ‘create and keep the clients’. No President or Administration would ever dare to restaff or abolish the Agriculture Department; the only possible solution is new top management, a ‘shrink the client base’ objective, and stringent retraining for the rest of the Department with accountable milestones for them to achieve. A government department - I MUST be joking but I am not.
This is God's Plan for us. Not Government Welfare.
My co-worker earns over$100K and gets food stamps because his baby was premature.
That is unbelievable but not surprising
Everyone around here felt the same about State commodities. No one wanted to be associated with anyone on commodities. However, if one offered you some gov’t cheese you took it as it was the best available.
Then people noticed that those on commodities had extra money to spend on beer and cigarettes. Now food stamps are everywhere.
Years ago some gov’t woman tried to get my mom to go on welfare. She refused. She later found the agent was trying to get as many on welfare as the more she got on,the better HER job security.
Several years ago there was a scandal when auto dealers were allowing food stamps to be used instead of cash for the down payment on new cars.
Food stamps have become the equivalent of alternate cash.
There is no ‘exemption’ for SNAP income limits baaed on a medical condition of a dependent.
If the situation is as you described it, either a mistake was made or income was not declared.
I would be happy to look into the situation.
He has Child Protective Services checking in on him regularly to make sure he spent the Food Stamp money on his kid.
We have another co-worker in the same situation ($100K+ and required to spend money on Food Stamps or CPS comes down on you....)
This is the norm in Washington state.
My co-worker has tried to refuse the Food Stamps, but has been rejected; and he’s afraid of the CPS people. They can take your kid.