Food Stamp Guidelines

[_Bob Loblaw]

I was just reading this rather fascinating article about how rapidly food stamp assistance has risen under President Obama. Yes, some of the increase has to do with the recession, but the bigger factor has been the increase in eligibility and the near doubling of food-stamp benefits.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publicat ... safety-net

The federal government set eligibility for food stamps at 130% of poverty-level income, but today 51% of food stamp recipients have incomes above the poverty line, with some 15 million recipients between 130% and 200% of the eligibility ceiling. Additionally, the average per-family benefit has increased by nearly 50% since 2009.

My question is whether the federal poverty guidelines are too low or the program has been allowed to expand beyond its role as a safety net. Does a family of four earning $45,000 a year need food assistance? Was per-family spending too low during the Clinton and Bush years, or is it too high today? I honestly don't know.

[_just me]

Huh. When I check the guidelines my family (of 4) wouldn't qualify and I make a lot less than $45000.

Maybe I'm missing something.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Huh. When I check the guidelines my family (of 4) wouldn't qualify and I make a lot less than $45000.

Maybe I'm missing something.

According to the article, the guidelines vary by state because the federal government allows waivers to states up to 200% of the poverty level. So, if you live in Montana, for example, you qualify if you make up to 200% of the poverty level. If you live, say, in California, you're eligible only at 130%.

[Guest]

Montana and California differ in non-food cost of living. Depends on what your rent/house payment is.

The quality/quantity of local food pantry supplement to food stamps should also be considered.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Montana and California differ in non-food cost of living. Depends on what your rent/house payment is.

Of course, but having lived in California, I know that non-food cost of living is much higher in California, yet their eligibility requirements are far stricter than Montana's. Seems counterintuitive to me.

[_just me]

Montana and California differ in non-food cost of living. Depends on what your rent/house payment is.

Of course, but having lived in California, I know that non-food cost of living is much higher in California, yet their eligibility requirements are far stricter than Montana's. Seems counterintuitive to me.

yes it does.

I imagine the need is greater in California, too. Hmmm.

[_MCB]

Of course, but having lived in California, I know that non-food cost of living is much higher in California, yet their eligibility requirements are far stricter than Montana's. Seems counterintuitive to me.

Heating cost in Montana would be astronmical compared to most areas of CAlifornia.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Heating cost in Montana would be astronmical compared to most areas of CAlifornia.

But that's offset by the astronomical air-conditioning costs in California. People who don't have air-conditioning in California tend to die. When they had the rolling blackouts last summer, the state set up shelters where people could go to have air conditioning. Even so, several people died.

There is simply no way the cost of living in Montana could ever approach that of California.

[_cinepro]

Honestly, my biggest concern is people buying unhealthful food with food stamps. If someone is so poor that they need a government "safety net" to eat, they should not be allowed to buy junk food, alcohol or cigarettes. No soda. No Oreos. No Bud Light. They should be given coupons for oatmeal, rice, Bisquick, pasta, cheerios, cooking oil, milk and fruits and vegetables.

But my biggest concern is that food stamps aren't a "safety net" at all. They're a government subsidy for the grocery industry. As explained in this LA Times editorial:

Food stamps were first conceived during the Depression as part of a Keynesian approach to priming the economic pump. And it was the grocery industry, not social welfare advocates, that pushed for them. The architects of the program emphasized that it bolstered household consumption and shored up the retail economy.

Food stamps aimed to replace the government's in-kind food distribution, which had forced the hungry to line up for government cheese and excess produce, sometimes off the back of trucks. Grocers preferred to have people standing in lines in their stores than standing in lines to take surplus food. Once the program was started, the grocery industry advertised the stamps to homemakers as smart, money-saving shopping tools.

Today's food stamp users are issued debit cards to swipe at the register just as other consumers do. And retailers across the spectrum, from swanky Whole Foods to cost-conscious Sam's Club, accept them, because it's good business. The program allows grocery sellers to keep customers who otherwise might not be able to afford today's rising food prices.

Food stamp redemptions are good for retailers. In 2009, they pumped $50 billion into the economy. And, according to a 2008 USDA publication, the benefits extend beyond stores: "Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates a total of $9.20 in community spending," and each "$1 billion of retail food demand by food stamp recipients generates 3,300 farm jobs."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/06 ... s-20120206

If we have to have this kind of "safety net", it would actually be much better to institute a government run "Bishop's Storehouse" type system, where basic food staples are given to the needy under the advisement of a counselor who helps the receiver make wise financial choices. The food could come from government farms that are supported by the unemployed who need the benefits. Set them up apart from the existing food and grocery industry (you can hear the screams already), and staff them as much as possible by those who are receiving the assistance. Rampant fraud and theft would ensue, but it would still be better than the current system.

[_Bob Loblaw]

In my capacity as a heartless bastard, let me say that I would be in favor of changing the food-stamp program to be much like the WIC program, which specifies which foods and how much one can purchase. To me, this would ensure that people are fed a healthy diet, which is the purpose of the program.