Eighty billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at.
So it makes sense some lawmakers want to take a close look at how we’re using that money to help our country’s neediest put food on the table.
But the rhetoric being deployed in calls for cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which accounts for the biggest chunk of the 1,000-page farm bill under debate — makes you wonder if it’s efficiencies they’re really after.
Or are they trying to call up, a generation after we first met her, the ghost of Ronald Regan’s mythical welfare queen?
That lazy so-and-so who sits on her hind end all day eating junk food and watching sordid TV shows still can raise the hackles of hardworking voters who wouldn’t mind getting something for nothing themselves, once in a while. But let’s put her aside for a minute. Let’s look, instead, at the facts.
One in seven Americans now receive SNAP benefits — what used to be called food stamps.
Just over 340,300 Iowans received a total of $527.2 million dollars in SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. More than 24,300 households received benefits in our Congressional district, alone.
Of SNAP households in our district, more than half included children under age 18; nearly 15 percent had at least one person aged 60 or over.
Fewer than 10 percent of those households also received cash welfare. In 85 percent, at least one person had been working within the past 12 months. Still, their median household income was only $17,434 — making that $135 or so per month in food assistance a welcome boost.
USDA estimates the SNAP program has lifted millions out of poverty. That hasn’t stopped legislators who want to cast the program as an abuse-riddled entitlement.
Despite a number of efficiencies and initiatives targeting those few cases when users try to game the system, opponents point to dramatically increasing numbers as evidence enough the program is almost certainly rife with fraud. They act surprised that SNAP rolls would have risen as the economy has sagged.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., spoke for many when he said, according to news accounts: “This is more than just a financial issue. It is a moral issue.”
He’s right, but his aim is a little off.
It is downright shameful so many millions of Americans can’t put sufficient food on the table without a little help.
More shameful, still, some lawmakers want only to offer them a heaping helping of misplaced blame.
Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net
I did a google search and found that. with regard to those Gold Dust Twins, Waste and Fraud, the overpay rate was 4.36% with 2/3 of that due to clerical error on the part of the caseworker. Of the remaining 1/3, I think it is safe to assume that most of those are clerical errors on the part of the recipient. Applying for food stamps is no mean feat for people who are functionally illiterate and/or not good with math. The application process requires record keeping skills and the ability to maintain a proper paper trail that for some people can be very difficult to do. Plus the consequences of making a mistake are terrifying. Ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine. I did intake work for a local non-profit for six years and with some of these people, even though there was no penalty for mistakes or even lying and we weren’t going to share information with anybody, the process was so stressful that I thought the client was either going to pass out or panic and run.
Welfare Cadillac Queens get caught. They have to be extremely good at hiding assets and income and sooner or later, usually sooner, something in their records won’t match up.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the percentage of actual fraud is extremely low—less than 1%. For Republicans to scream waste and fraud as an excuse to take food away from children, elderly, disabled, and people working but earning less than break even wages is beneath contempt.
As for the questionable food items being purchased, we have to keep in mind that SNAP is administered through the Department of Agriculture and was started during the Great Depression as a way to ensure a market for agricultural products. Feeding the hungry was a secondary issue and the program is still run with those 80 year old priorities. We also have to keep in mind “food deserts” in rural and in low income urban areas There simply are no proper grocery stores and people are forced to buy what’s available regardless of its quality. What are their alternatives.