Record numbers of Americans are now supplementing their budgets with food stamps. Just two years ago, only 36 million were using food stamps; now 46 million are. (Blytic)
Apparently unhappy that a handful of undeserving people might be getting food stamps, Pennsylvania
has decided to make it tougher on poor people who are a smidgen less poor. Beginning May 1, the state will buck a national trend by reimposing ridiculously strict asset limits on applicants. Anybody under 60 who has a paltry $2,000 in assets, and anybody 60 and over with assets of more than $3,250 will be ineligible to receive food stamps. The limit will not apply to a primary dwelling or a car, if the applicant should be so fortunate to own either.
Thirty-five states have eliminated asset limits for obtaining food stamps, many of them because those limits were keeping out middle-class families hurt by the recession. The $2,000 asset limit is allowed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food stamp program. The allowable limit has not been changed since 1980. Because of inflation, $2,000 in 1980 is now worth $728.
Eligibility is otherwise allowed for anyone making 160 percent of the official poverty level. Nationwide, households that received food stamps in 2010 had a median household income of $17,912, compared with the national median of $50,046, according to the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.
The Department of Public Welfare, which handles administration of the food stamp program in Pennsylvania, estimates that some 2 percent of the 1.8 million Pennsylvanians now receiving food stamps could be affected.
Anne Bale, a spokeswoman for DPW, said the asset test was a way to ensure that "people with resources are not taking advantage of the food-stamp program," funded by federal money.
In addition, Bale said, the test was related to DPW Secretary Gary Alexander's initiative to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse across all department programs. ...
The DPW plan caught many by surprise, but has been widely condemned by Philadelphia city officials, business leaders statewide, and advocates for the poor.
They point to federal statistics showing that Pennsylvania has one of the lowest food-stamp fraud rates in the nation: one-tenth of 1 percent.
But, as in the case of so many of these new Republican administrations, the goal is not so much waste, fraud and abuse as it is to punish poor people. It's the old "welfare queen" attack, the idea that folks on food stamps are just layabouts. And now, with actual welfare going to one-third as many people as were receiving it when the Federal Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was passed, other targets of assistance must be attacked.
This is not speculation. Under Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, the state got rid of its asset limits in 2008 because so many seniors and other low-income people were being hurt. Now, it seems, if you want to eat, you should sell your sofa. Next month, who knows?
As Alfred Lubrano reports:
Critics of the DPW plan say it would particularly punish elderly people saving for their burials, poor people trying to save enough money to get out of poverty, and working- and middle-class people who lost their jobs in the recession and may now have to liquidate assets to feed their families.
"If conservatives want people to be less dependent on government, and reward work and entrepreneurship, then you have to allow low-income people to have a little bit of money in the bank," said Joel Berg, a national hunger expert.
Instead of worrying so much that a few people may have tucked away $3,000 or $4,000 for a rainy day, like a medical or other emergency, Pennsylvania and states across the nation ought to be more concerned that an estimated 30 percent of people eligible for food stamps don't get them.
Some resist out of pride, no doubt, or because they figure they will only be in straitened circumstances briefly. But for the rest, the states and the federal government ought to be making an effort, via advertising and other means, to ensure that the food stamp program does what it was designed to do—help everyone in need. That's especially crucial given that 47 percent of the program's expenditures go to families with children. Enough already with making the lives of poor people even more difficult than they already are.