Tag Archives: food stamps

Drug War, Featured, Politics, US

Wisconsin to Begin Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

Leave a comment

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker announced that he has signed off on the state’s plan to drug test some welfare recipients, which will be implemented on November 9th.

Walker’s office released a statement on Tuesday which said that the program submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families is “another step forward in implementing drug testing of able-bodied adults seeking certain welfare benefits.”

Walker said that the program will apply to “certain able-bodied adults seeking benefits and/or training through Transform Milwaukee, Transitional Jobs, and noncustodial parents in the W-2 program.”

[pull_quote_center]Our 2015-17 State Budget implements common-sense reforms that put in place drug screening, testing, and treatment mechanisms, so we can continue strengthening Wisconsin’s workforce Employers across the state frequently tell me they have good-paying jobs available in high-demand fields, but need their workers to be drug-free. These important entitlement reforms will help more people find family-supporting jobs, moving them from government dependence to true independence.[/pull_quote_center]

Under the new plan, Walker also noted that “individuals who test positive for a controlled substance without a prescription would be eligible for a drug treatment plan.”

While Walker dropped out of the presidential race in September, creating a drug-testing program for welfare recipients was one of the plans he highlighted when he announced his campaign bid in July.

“In Wisconsin, we enacted a program that says that adults who are able to work must be enrolled in one of our job training programs before they can get a welfare check,” Walker said at his campaign launch. “Now, as of the budget I just signed, we are also making sure they can take a drug test.”

[RELATED: Walker Takes Feds To Court To Drug-Test for Food Stamps]

Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against top officials at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in July, challenging the federal rules surrounding the U.S. food stamp program known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Federal rules were unclear regarding whether states could legally drug test welfare recipients.

In February, ThinkProgress reported that after looking at similar programs in Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah, it found that the states are spending “hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users.”

The report noted that according to statistics, while the states collectively have spent nearly $1 million on the drug-testing efforts, welfare applications test positive for drugs at a rate of 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, which is lower than the national drug use rate of 9.4 percent.

US

Walker Takes The Feds To Court To Drug-Test For Food Stamps

11 Comments

By Connor D. Wolf

In preparation for a possible federal challenge, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking the district court to allow the state to drug-test food stamp recipients.

“This lawsuit seeks to provide clarity that the state of Wisconsin has the authority to require drug-testing for FoodShare recipients,” Schimel said in a statement. “In previous communications with the state of Wisconsin, the federal government has taken the opposite position despite the clear statutory language in federal law.”

The lawsuit was filed against top officials at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The agency oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps. The main problem is unclear federal rules regarding whether states can drug-test those on welfare.

The program is run by both federal and state agencies. Though the state has interrupted federal law to say it could drug-test recipients, Program Director for the Midwest Susan Holzer warned it could not.

“As you are aware, states are prohibited under federal law from imposing any additional eligibility conditions on individuals for the receipt of SNAP benefits,” Holzer wrote in an email, according to the lawsuit.

“Therefore, FNS will continue to monitor closely any action the Wisconsin state Legislature takes on this legislation,” the email continued. “If the legislation is subsequently enacted into law, FNS will work with its general counsel to determine how it interacts with federal law governing the program and advise the state agency appropriately.”

Wisconsin first proposed drug-testing food stamp recipients in the most recent state budget, signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Sunday. Walker is currently running in the Republican primary for president. Wisconsin is not the first state which has tried to implement drug-testing for welfare recipients. Georgia proposed a similar policy but in 2014 the USDA held the same position that the state could not.

SNAP is the nation’s largest food-assistance program. According to a report from the USDA, the program has increased from 17 million participants in 2000 to nearly 47 million in 2014. The size alone has prompted concern amongmany lawmakers of the potential for abuse.

Follow Connor on Twitter

 

 

 

 

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Politics, US

Indiana GOP candidate defends Facebook comments

166 Comments

John Johnston, an Indiana GOP candidate running for the House of Representatives, is defending controversial comments on poverty he made via Facebook.

“For almost three generations people, in some cases, have been given handouts,” stated Johnston on Facebook.  “No one has the guts to just let [poor people] wither and die.”

Johnston continues by calling out political candidates from both sides of the aisle on not calling a “spade a spade,” and “enabling” this type of behavior. “As long as the Dems can get their votes, the enabling will continue.  The Republicans need their votes and dare not cut the fiscal tether.”

Some have called Johnston out on these comments saying he wants to end welfare and food stamp programs.  Johnston has replied to these accusations saying he does not believe a thoughtful society would let people go hungry, and he was simply speaking in hyperbole.  He also said he has no intention of ending these programs.

Later, Johnston commented on a Facebook post from Mad Mac, a Facebook group which satirizes and makes fun of politics in northern Indiana, saying, with regards to his earlier statements, “Able bodied people are trapped in poverty because they have nowhere, no idea, no hope of anything other than the subsistence life that the government gives them.”

Politics, US

Food Stamps Used To Buy Lingerie In Louisiana

16 Comments

Kiss My Lingerie in Louisiana has been accepting Electronic Benefits Transfer cards as payment, according to a video report by KSLA-TV. Recipients of the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)” receive Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. The cards, which are the contemporary version of “food stamps,” look and function like a debit card but are only supposed to be used to purchase food.

The Louisiana lingerie store has reportedly been accepting EBT cards for over eight months, suggesting misuse of welfare benefits that is potentially significant in scope.

KSLA-TV reported that the store owner accepts food stamps as payment so that he “does not discriminate against customers.”

One unidentified woman told the station, “We were told anything could be purchased there, with the food stamp card. No child I know eats edible underwear… It’s still the taxpayers dollars that are being used in a store like that and that really upsets me.”

In some states, EBT cards may be used to purchase items necessary to “family needs,” in addition to food. It is nearly impossible to make the argument that lingerie fits into that category.

After several national media outlets picked up the story, Kiss My Lingerie’s owners attempted to vehemently insist that they never accepted EBT cards as payment. One employee from Kiss My Lingerie said, “We don’t accept that for adult toys. No, no way.”

The extreme, left-leaning “news site” called “Americans Against the Tea Party” (AATTP) accused several outlets, including the libertarian magazine “Reason,” of publishing a story “based on lies… [it] seems like an obvious attempt to turn Louisiana residents against the food stamp program.” AATTP reported that Reason “didn’t really fact check too well before they published this piece.”

But it is AATTP that didn’t fact check. The picture below shows Kiss My Lingerie’s front door with an “EBT Accepted Here” sign on it. KSLA-TV’s full video report can be viewed here.

Screenshot 2014-03-15 at 1.37.18 AM

This story signifies a serious problem in the food stamp program. While many may blame Kiss My Lingerie for welfare abuse in this instance, the blame should be instead placed on the federal Department of Agriculture, where the root of the problem lies. SNAP has become so mammoth in size that EBT cards have become a common, acceptable form of payment in many situations. What was once meant to be a small-scale program to help struggling families put food on the table has become a way for the federal government to subsidize various wants and needs for one-sixth of the U.S. population.

 Follow Kristin Tate on Facebook and Twitter. 

Opinion, Politics, US

Feds Misspend $2.6 Billion On Food Stamps In 2013, Govt. Dependency Reaches Historic Highs

67 Comments

food-stamps-card-16x9

The Obama Administration continues to assert that the economy is “recovering.” But an astounding number of Americans relied on food stamps, or in USDA parlance, the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” in 2013. According to new statistics from the Agriculture Department (USDA), 20 percent of American households were on food stamps last year. The total number of households on food stamps in 2013 was 23 million; this figure is up 722,675 from 2012.

Compare this to 2009, when only 15 percent of American households relied on SNAP.

Furthermore, according to the same USDA report, one in five Americans are now on food stamps.

It is important to note that the number of SNAP recipients vary greatly from state to state. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that in some states, nearly a quarter of the population relies on food stamps. Mississippi and Washington, DC top the list of food stamp enrollment “by state,” at 22% and 23% respectively.

Screenshot 2014-01-23 at 12.32.56 PM

To make matters worse, the USDA has acknowledged that billions were spent on this program by mistake.

In 2013 SNAP overpaid recipients $2.1 billion by accident. An additional $500 million was underpaid to other recipients to the tune of more “mistakes.” This brings the total of food stamp mispayments to $2.6 billion.

That’s a $2.6 billion “whoospie-daisy.”

Just think what could have been done with those wasted billions. That could have restored all of the military veteran’s pension cuts in the latest budget legislation. It could have housed thousands of homeless Americans for years. Or, it could have provided me and every one of my friends a wicked bad-ass vacation.

According to the USDA, improper payments “were attributable to administrative and documentation error… [an] improper payment occurs when a participating household is certified for too many or too few benefits compared to the level for which they are eligible. This can result from incomplete or inaccurate reporting of income and/or assets by participants at the time of certification and from changes subsequent to certification, or errors in determining eligibility or benefits by caseworkers.”

Ooooh, ok. I feel much better about that misappropriated money now.

The lack of accountability within the SNAP program is baffling — such a blatant disregard for significant funds would never be tolerated in the free market. A private company that operated so recklessly would likely go out of business; at the very least, someone would be held accountable or fired.

But not if they work for the government! Bureaucratic federal agencies are rarely held accountable for their failures. In fact, bloated and incompetent agencies like those running Medicare, Medicaid, federal housing, and SNAP claim to need more money to operate effectively. Then again, have you ever heard of a government bureaucrat proclaiming that they are sufficiently funded and don’t need any more money?

A significant portion of the budgeting and work within SNAP should be contracted out to companies in the private sector, which could be held accountable. The Department of Defense (DoD) does this frequently with some success. When the DoD needs work done, it reviews various offers from competing companies such as Raytheon, Lockhead Martin, and Boeing. The business with the most promising plan is then given the contracting job. If the chosen contractor fails to be effective, it can be financially penalized and may lose the contract the following year.

If these kind of reforms were put into place within SNAP, there would finally be some hope for restoring some accountability in this out-of-control program.

A support system for our society’s most vulnerable is essential. But entrusting the government to run every part of these programs, like SNAP, is a huge mistake that will cost us all dearly.

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

Politics, US

New Bill Funds Food Stamp Promotion To Illegal Immigrants

12 Comments

104948150-e1354684814781

President Obama’s Department Of Agriculture (USDA) continues to spend tax money to promote food stamps to illegal immigrants living in and entering the United States. The government agency has done this for over a decade despite the fact that federal law requires individuals entering the US to be financially independent.

Food stamps, or in USDA parlance, the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” came under controversy last year for being promoted to illegal immigrants. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch last year revealed that the USDA works with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal immigrants.

As Judicial Watch reported, “The promotion of [SNAP] includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.  Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, ‘You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.’”

Despite these findings, the House’s new $1 trillion bill does not defund the USDA’s promotion of SNAP to illegal immigrants — it only “strongly” encourages the USDA to stop the program.

An unnamed GOP congressional aide told TheBlaze, “It’s simply appalling that our government is even doing this—recruiting people who have come to America into government dependence. There is an ongoing partnership with USDA and the government of Mexico to promote food stamp use by Mexican nationals in the U.S. What happens in the omnibus is they put out the summary document claiming they are prohibiting the program. But in reality, there is no language that does this. There is language in the nonbinding explanatory statement encouraging USDA to stop working with foreign governments to promote food stamp use by immigrants, but that is not legally binding.”

It is unknown how much promoting SNAP to illegal immigrants costs taxpayers.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers said, “There is concern about the use of valuable tax dollars to promote enrollment of SNAP through radio, television, and other advertisements as well as outreach activities with foreign governments to encourage the use of SNAP. USDA is strongly encouraged to cease these types o f government-sponsored recruitment activities.”

The new House bill, filed on Monday night, did not eliminate the program but it did include requirements meant to “weed out” waste, fraud, and abuse in SNAP. The bill is expected to be voted on in the Senate this Friday.

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

Politics, US

You Can Now Pay For Starbucks With Food Stamps

27 Comments

Starbucks

One woman pulled it off. The story is starting to make waves on the internet again.  Jackie Fowler, a Salem, Oregon food stamp recipient, went inside the luxury Starbucks franchise located inside of a Safeway grocery store with the local Fox News station filming. She purchased one tall Frappaccino and a slice of pumpkin loaf. Her total was $5.25. She slid out her Oregon Trail food stamp card, paid in part by the federal government, and handed it to the cashier who processed the transaction.

Fowler only made the purchase to assist Fox News with the investigation.

“They’re overpriced as it is,” said Fowler of the luxury brand. “That’s money that somebody could be eating with — a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk.” Fowler says the program is in need of reform due to the abuse.

It doesn’t seem like management is trying to discourage the use of food stamps inside of the Starbucks. In fact, they are advertising it, as seen in the sign.

Corporate stores do not accept food stamps. However, because the store is run by the grocery chain it is offered as a “grocery item”. Such Starbucks outlets are located inside of  airports, malls, colleges, Target, Alberstons, Fred Meyer and other chain grocery stores.

 

 

Politics, US

Food Stamp Riots: A Looming Domestic Threat?

52 Comments

One in six Americans are now on food stamps, amounting to 20 percent of all American households and 47.6 million individuals.

A record $80 billion was spent on the food subsidy program last year, but an across-the-board cut is scheduled to go into effect on November 1. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), food stamp payments will decrease by $36 per month for a family of four (currently each household receives an average of $272 per month).

Could the decrease in funding lead to riots?

On Fox Business, anchor Neil Cavuto reported that the US government will spend $80 million preparing for possible violence as a result of the food stamp decrease. This money will go towards protecting the IRS and other government buildings from American citizens.

“This could be all Hell breaks loose day,” Cavuto said.

Cavuto’s guest, TeaParty.net Chief Strategist Niger Innis, said that people often act out when entitlements are threatened. He compared the situation to what previously happened in Greece.

“This is really frightening. We are on a slow march to becoming Greece,” Innis said. “When 50 million people are on food stamps then you have a situation where it’s obvious that what government can give to you, government can take away.”

Innis later pointed out that cutting food stamps may increase chances of violence in the short term, but in the long term people will likely find themselves in a better situation if they get off food stamps.

Food stamp “rioting” too place on October 14 in two Louisiana Wal-Mart stores when food stamps were temporarily down due to Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) outages.

During this outage, the spending limit on EBT cards was removed but Wal-Mart allowed individuals with EBT cards to buy food anyways. Not surprisingly, the shelves were left totally empty. Some food stamp recipients exited the stores with $700 worth of food and merchandise.

Should the government be concerned about possible food stamp rioting as a result of November’s decrease in funding? Or is the government reacting and overspending?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Politics, US

Single Mom Who Makes $29,000 Actually “Makes” More than $69,000 Salary?

162 Comments

Single Mother

Yesterday BenSwann.com writer Kristen Tate reported that more Americans are enrolling for food stamps despite “growth in the economy”.

“…enrollment in the (food stamps) program jumped up by 211,708 people in the second-quarter, despite household wealth increasing $1.3 trillion within the same time period.”

The numbers in the report are strange as Brietbart News explains:

“Roughly half of the $1.3 trillion increase ($525 billion) was due to residential real estate values improving, and roughly $300 billion of the gains were attributable to corporate equities and mutual funds.”

Why are more people moving on to food stamps if the economy is doing better? Shouldn’t the opposite be true?

One of the major challenges in media today is breaking the left/right paradigm. As you know this is a major theme of my work. Food stamp enrollment is a great example of this paradigm at work and it is the left/right paradigm that is much of the reason Americans remain pitted against each other over this issue.

Food Stamps from the Left. The Left deals with the issue of food stamps in an interesting way. Regularly, the Left wants to approach the issue for a belief that many Americans are hurting and that more people need this help from the government. The left side of this argument is not all wrong. It is true that millions of Americans are hurting and the belief that the “system” is broken is also true. But the Left paradigm of why the system is broken is often not correct. The left seems to believe that if only more companies would share money with employees and we could share the wealth of the 1% with the 99%, these problems would improve.

Food Stamps from the Right. The Right deals with the issue of food stamps in an equally interesting way. Regularly, the Right wants to approach the issue from the paradigm that more and more Americans are freeloaders, and too many people are in the cart and not enough are pulling. The right side of the argument is not all wrong. It is true that the welfare system is riddled with waste, fraud and abuse. For those of us who grew up and lived in communities where food stamps were a way of life for most people, we know that generations of Americans have learned how to play the system. There is a great deal of abuse and misuse of this government “help”. The right seems to believe that if only we would force people to get back to work and stop sitting around doing nothing, these problems would improve.

Both sides are correct that our system is broken. Where they are wrong is in their talking points is how. The real problem that neither side addresses is the plummeting value of the U.S. dollar. Over the past 100 years, the American dollar has lost a staggering 97% of its value. Because the dollar has lost its value so rapidly as a result of the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Treasury continually flooding the market with currency, Americans have no value in their savings and no value in their money. The stunning devalue of the U.S. dollar means that Americans increasingly cannot afford home and car payments, groceries, etc. When we claim that “residential home values are on the rise” or that “corporate equities and mutual funds are improving”, that means nothing for the couple or single parent attempting to feed their family today.

How does government deal with the loss of value to currency? The answer from really both the left and the right political powers are to continue growing federal, state and local government. The answer to the loss of value in currency is to “give” more currency away. That of course does not resolve the issue but instead actually creates greater need. When government subsidizes any product or service, the cost of that product or service automatically rises. Why is the war on poverty an abject failure? Because the same President Lyndon Johnson, who declared war on poverty also officially moved the United States away from the gold standard so that the U.S. could print as much money as we like. How is that working out for us?

So what does this mean for a single mom in 2013? Consider this. For a single mother who makes $29,000 per year, when coupled with government assistance (CHIP, Medicare, Food, Energy, Negative Income Tax, etc.) receives over $57,327 in “income” from her employer and government help. If that same mother has a salaried job of $69,000 a year, she actually makes less “income”. Because of the tax system and drop off in benefits, that mother makes only $57,045 dollars in net income and benefits.

Is the left correct that the mom who makes $29,000 is a victim of society and needs help to make $57,000+ in income just to get by? What the left doesn’t address is this, “When in American history has a family needed $57,000 in income to get by?” Why do we assume that over time money loses its value? It shouldn’t.

Is the right correct when they say that this mom really only makes $29,000 and therefore is victimizing all the other families from whom she is taking $28,000 in benefits and needs to move up in her career if she wants to make more money? Do they not consider that under our current system this mother will NEVER be able to jump in income from $29,000 to $70,000 dollars? Therefore, through government “assistance” that mother has been financially blocked from being able to advance in her career. With the devaluation of our currency, how do we expect that this mother can raise her children on $29,000 per year? Especially when you consider all the “user” taxes built into just about every product and service.

The Left and the Right, especially in Washington, will use the circumstances of a single mother to push their agendas but who is actually working to resolve her (our) real issues? As long as politicians keep us fighting with each other over who is getting the most tax breaks, the most help and the most advantage, they can keep us from recognizing how they are destroying the ability for any American to live without THEIR help.

Politics, US

Food Stamp Enrollment Jumps 211,708 Despite Increased Household Wealth

3 Comments

Food stamps are typically a measure of household economic stability.

Thus, is unsettling that enrollment in the program jumped up by 211,708 people in the second-quarter, despite household wealth increasing $1.3 trillion within the same time period.

As reported by Breitbart News, “Roughly half of the $1.3 trillion increase ($525 billion) was due to residential real estate values improving, and roughly $300 billion of the gains were attributable to corporate equities and mutual funds.”

Even as the economy improves, food stamp enrollment continues to hit record highs.

The Obama Administration, set on expanding food stamps, spent $43.3 million tax dollars to advertise the subsidies in 2011 alone. Government-produced, colorful commercials enthusiastically encourage people to sign up for the subsidies.

Moreover, the commercials portray food stamps in a wholly positive light. To be sure, government efforts to distribute food stamps should not demean recipients. But there is a better balance to be struck between safeguarding the dignity of recipients and making them feel that food stamps are an admirable, unqualified entitlement.

The commercials show up frequently on various television and radio stations. Here is a radio ad produced by Obama’s US Department Of Agriculture (USDA), telling listeners that food stamps will make them “look amazing.”

There are even food stamp ads targeted at illegal immigrants.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch revealed that the USDA works with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal immigrants.

As Judicial Watch reported, “The promotion of [food stamps] includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.  Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, ‘You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.'”

Amazingly, almost one out of six Americans are now on food stamps.

Despite spending $80 billion on food stamps last year, the Obama administration is now pushing to spend more. A new government study argues that the ballooned welfare program needs increased tax dollar funding to help “food insecure” homes.

Where does it all end?

A temporary and effective safety net to help those in need is absolutely necessary. But when one sixth of the American population is receiving food subsidies, there is clearly something wrong with the system. Instead of making poverty more comfortable with government subsidies, incentives should be created to encourage hard work and self-sufficiency.

Your thoughts on these statistics? Let us know in the comments section below.

Opinion, Politics, US

House Votes To Cut $40 Billion From Food Stamp Program – But Don’t Expect Spending To Actually Decrease

22 Comments

As we reported last week, the ballooned food stamps program costs taxpayers $80 billion per year. Nearly one sixth of Americans now rely on the food subsidies.

But on Thursday, the House voted to cut $40 billion from food stamps over a 10 year period.

To achieve these cuts, it would be made harder for able-bodied adults with no dependents to get waivers. Healthy adults with no dependents would be limited to three months of food stamps over a three year period, unless they enroll in a government job training program or land a part time job.

The program would also be means-tested more aggressively to focus on the truly needy, and eligibility rules would be strictly enforced.

The proposed cuts are enclosed in the House Republicans’ Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman from Indiana was a strong advocate for the cuts. On the House floor he said, “In the real world, we measure success by results. It’s time for Washington to measure success by how many families are lifted out of poverty and helped back on their feet, not by how much Washington bureaucrats spend year after year.”

But most Democrats do not agree.

Democrat Debbie Stabenow is the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. On the Senate floor, she said the bill “will never see the light of day in the United States Senate.”

Nancy Pelosi said the bill is “dangerous” and takes food away from needy mothers, children, and families. Similarly, Rep. Donna Edwards from Maryland called the cuts “mean.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut said the cuts are “immoral,” and that it “goes against decades of bipartisan support for fighting hunger and would be disastrous for millions of Americans.”

Regardless of what the House passed this week, food stamp spending will almost definitely not decrease. President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that if the bill gets to his desk, he will veto it.

Good grief. When will the spending stop?

Food stamps are well intended, but it is time for politicians to start thinking with their heads instead of their hearts.

A temporary and effective safety net to help those in need is absolutely necessary. But when one sixth of the American population is receiving food subsidies, there is clearly something wrong with the system.

Government spending is not the sole answer to poverty. If it were, America would have the lowest poverty rate in the world. Instead of making poverty more comfortable with government handouts, incentives should be created to encourage hard work and self-sufficiency.

Anyone who has taken an intro economics course knows that people respond to incentives. When you subsidize a benefit, there will always be more people seeking out that benefit. Why are Washington bureaucrats oblivious to that?

Politics, US

Food Stamps Used To Pay For Tattoos In North Carolina

241 Comments

A tattoo parlor in Raleigh, North Carolina reportedly took food stamps as payment for tattoos.

The shop is called Addiction Tattooz. Its owner, Clifford Craig Tittle, was arrested after police discovered that he was accepting Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards as payment. EBT cards look and function like a debit card but actually store “food stamp” subsidies. The cards are only supposed to be used to purchase food.

Tittle accepted EBT cards at least four separate times, revealed the  Agriculture Department.

As reported by The Daily Caller, “On Sept. 4 two people charged $421 and $417.61 to EBT cards (in addition to cash) for work at Ink Addiction Tattooz.  On Sept. 6 another person charged $413 to their EBT card plus $175 in cash for tattoo work from Tittle. Also on Sept. 6, another person sold Tittle an EBT card worth $570 to Tittle for $215.”

One man who was familiar with Addiction Tattooz worked with police officers to catch Tittle. The informant “sold” Tittle food stamps two times in September. In exchange for the food stamps, Tittle gave the informant $600 worth of tattoos.

Thankfully, The Agriculture Department was able to stop the trafficking at this tattoo parlor. But the problem may expand far beyond Addiction Tattooz.

Food stamps are valuable because they can easily be traded for money using the “cash back” option at many convenience stores.

How can our government prevent welfare benefits, intended to put food on the table, from being used to pay for luxuries like tattoos?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Opinion, Politics, US

One-Sixth Of Population Now On Food Stamps – Is There Any End In Sight?

24 Comments

Government welfare is well intended, but it can make poor people comfortable remaining in poverty. Why pay your own way when Uncle Sam will pay it for you?

Food stamps, or in USDA parlance, the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” is an expensive and bloated welfare program. A temporary and effective safety net to help struggling Americans put food on the table undoubtedly makes sense, but SNAP has spun out-of-control.

Almost one in six, or 47.5 million, Americans now receive food stamps. Over 13 million more people receive the food subsidies today than when Obama took office.

15% of the US population is on food stamps, but some states rely on the benefits more than others.

The Wall Street Journal points out that in some states, nearly a quarter of the population relies on food stamps. Mississippi and Washington, DC top the list of food stamp enrollment “by state,” at 22% and 23% respectively.

Screen shot 2013-09-09 at 9.40.02 PM
Graphic by the Wall Street Journal

Don’t expect SNAP to downsize anytime soon — despite spending a whopping $80 billion on food stamps last year, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) argues the program needs more funding.

The USDA is so set on expanding SNAP that it spent $43.3 million to advertise food stamps in 2011 alone. Government-produced, colorful commercials enthusiastically encourage people to sign up for the subsidies.

Moreover, the commercials portray food stamps in a wholly positive light. To be sure, government efforts to distribute food stamps should not demean recipients. But there is a better balance to be struck between safeguarding the dignity of recipients and making them feel that the SNAP assistance is an admirable, unqualified entitlement.

The commercials show up frequently on various television and radio stations. Here is a radio ad produced by Obama’s USDA, telling listeners that food stamps will make them “look amazing.”

Some ads are produced by state governments. This television commercial produced by New York tells people food stamps are “a quick, easy, confidential way to get help.”

It would be easier to swallow the heavy expense to taxpayers for ads promoting SNAP if the program itself were not already grossly out of hand.

There are even SNAP ads targeted at illegal immigrants.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch revealed that the USDA works with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal immigrants.

As Judicial Watch reported, “The promotion of [SNAP] includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.  Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, ‘You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.'”

SNAP is also ridden with fraud. Many individuals trade their food stamps for cash and drugs, but the government does little to address this issue.

SNAP recipients receive Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, which look and function like a debit card but are only supposed to be used to purchase food.

ebt_card

Despite EBT cards’ intended use, a simple search online pulls up countless discussion boards where people discuss how to trade the benefits for cash.

Here is a discussion thread from Yahoo Answers:

Screen shot 2013-09-09 at 11.46.58 PM

Good grief.

Making matters worse is the fact that SNAP is often counterproductive by discouraging work. When a recipient starts making too much income, they lose the benefit. The incentive to find a job is gone.

Some liberals assert that food stamp use is up because the economy is bad, but that is simply not the case. Food stamp spending nearly doubled years ago, before the current recession. The program’s budget rose from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007. Congress should means test the food stamps program much more aggressively to focus on the truly needy, while eliminating disincentives for individuals to go to work.

This is certainly one of the most pressing issues facing the nation. But it receives almost no coverage from the so-called mainstream media.

What will it take for the media and citizens to wake up? Will it take 50% of all citizens receiving food stamps? 75%?

Americans have become obsessed with the “1%” and “99%.” They should instead focus on the 17% taking from the 83%. That is a statistic worth protesting in our public parks.

Opinion, Politics, US

Government Wants To Spend Even More Tax Dollars On Food Stamps

25 Comments

Despite spending $80 billion on food stamps last year, the Obama administration is now pushing to spend more. A new government study argues that the ballooned welfare program needs increased tax dollar funding to help “food insecure” homes.

But where does it all end?

The food stamp program, or as the USDA likes to call it, the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),”  grows significantly each year. In 2007, food stamp spending was at $35 billion — by 2012, it had increased to $80 billion.

Amazingly, almost one out of six Americans are now on food stamps, and this number continues to grow. Over 13 million more people rely on the program now than when Obama took office in 2009. There is also no time limit for most food stamp recipients. Those who have children, are elderly, or are disabled never have a time limit. Over two thirds of SNAP’s recipients fall into this category.

Although food stamp spending continues to increase, the number of “food insecure” households essentially remains the same.

But the government keeps encouraging more people to sign up.

Judicial Watch reports, “the Obama administration insists on expanding the rolls even offering the benefit to illegal immigrants. Earlier this year Judicial Watch obtained documents from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency that distributes food stamps, detailing its work with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens.”

The welfare program is also ridden with fraud. Some recipients trade their food stamp benefits for cash. Others use the subsidies to buy drugs and weapons. This abuse cost us, the taxpayers, $200 million.

Government spending is not the sole answer to poverty. If it were, America would have the lowest poverty rate in the world. Instead of making poverty more comfortable with government handouts, incentives should be created to encourage hard work and self-sufficiently. Welfare programs like food stamps should also be means tested more aggressively to focus on the truly needy.

Anyone who has taken an intro economics course knows that people respond to incentives. When you subsidize a benefit, there will always be more people seeking out that benefit. Why are Washington bureaucrats oblivious to that?