Recently, the state I live in started making changes in the food stamps program. The change was designed to lower the number of people who receive food stamps, and to do it by telling "abled bodied" individuals without children that if they weren't working or in training, they would be stripped of food stamps.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"We know that employment is the most effective way to escape poverty," Phyllis Gilmore, secretary of the Kansas Department of Children and Families, said in a statement posted on hayspost.com. Gilmore's agency estimates that 20,000 Kansas SNAP recipients will be affected.
It's a way to save money, says the state. But what it really boils down to is another way to provide a social stigma to those who use foodstamps/EBT.
Simply saying we need to reconfigure the system isn't the answer, making sure it is a known social shame is a part of the equation to drive people away from asking for help.
There are few things in life as humbling as having to ask for assistance. To go and tell other people you aren't going to be able to handle expenses, food or anything on your own. Despite the right wing trope that people love to use food stamps - a meme they use hand in hand to imply racist hasty generalizations, they make sure at every angle to point out the nature of people who accept said assistance.
Rush Limbaugh once said (Audio at link)
"Enrollment..... in food stamps..... is..... skyrocketing...... Now, theoretically we're in an economic recovery. I'm saying 'theoretically.' The, thub media, and look, ub, in the, in the, realm of low-information voters, we're in a recovery, right? To low-information voters - pay attention only to the mainstream media and and the Obama-loving Twitter universe, we're in a recovery. Well, that ought-a cause... a reduction... in food stamp rolls, and it always has. In the past when-e economy was growing, enrollment in such programs like, like, the food stamp program decline.
Supplemental.... Nutritional..... Assistance..... Program, the buy-beer-program-with-the-government-credit card........ program. Those participants usually decrease in number; Not happening. As our economy continues into recovery (ahem), the food stamp rolls are increasing. Now, I know, the economy isn't, in recovery, so it sort of blows thee..... the theory."
http://rushtruth.net/...
It is easy to focus on the outright lies, of course... that you can buy beer with EBT. But the subtext, the message the audience hears remains the same: people who accept EBT are just itching to waste government money rather then look for a job. They are somehow "less than" the rest of us.
That somehow, asking for assistance makes a person immediately less then those who don't. It doesn't just stop with the inference that people are just wasting it, Sean Hannity and others go so far as to infer that there is a problem with the number of disabled who receive assistance:
http://www.foxnews.com/...
HANNITY: Hang on a second. The biggest problem we have are the sheared numbers, and Steve touched on this a little bit. We now have 50 million Americans on food stamps. It's doubled under Obama and we have 14 million Americans on disability. That's one in five Americans getting almost their life sustenance from the government.
HANRETTY: That's 47 percent of people on SNAP are children, eight percent are senior citizens.
It's enough that they move out of their way to even "tongue in cheek" propose solutions to the "Food Stamp Epidemic"
I have a solution: Dharma-style food stamp reform. Fans of “Lost” will recognize the reference, but for those who did not watch the show, the Dharma Initiative packaged its own food to supply members of the project on the island. Each item came in a package with a simple black-and-white label and a basic description. Beer cans were marked with the word “Beer.” It probably tasted as bad as it looked. In any case, here is a picture:
Dharma-style food stamp reform would have four basic components. First, the federal government would create a government “brand” of essential food items such as milk, cheese, meat, cereal, vegetables, bread, peanut butter, beans, juice, soup, baby formula, diapers, etc., and would package the items with simple black-and-white labels and basic descriptions. The word “Government” would be stamped across the top in bold letters so everyone would know it was a welfare item. These items could be manufactured by major companies through government contracts, thus not creating a net loss to private industry. Because competition is not an issue, taste and quality, with the exception of the baby formula and baby food, would not be a top priority. Snacks, soda, cigarettes and beer would not be available through the program.
Second, the government would lease existing store fronts and set up “government stores.” There are typically several grocery store locations that have gone out of business in any given area; these would make ideal settings for the new government stores. The number of store locations would be chosen based on the size of the area and its number of food stamp recipients. The stores would be placed on public transportation routes for convenience.
Third, and most importantly, all food stamp recipients would be required to spend their government dollars at these stores. Private grocery stores and chains, such as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, would no longer be allowed to accept EBT cards, and the money loaded on the cards could not be withdrawn and used for any other purpose. Each card would have a set dollar amount sizable enough to purchase essential items from the government store. For example, a family of four could expect to receive enough government-brand beans, rice, bread, milk, cheese, meat, cereal and vegetables to last a month with careful planning. In other words, they must be ready to stretch a food budget. Families with babies would get a month supply of formula, baby food and diapers.
Fourth, anyone who accepts government aid would have to submit to a monthly tobacco and drug test. Food stamp recipients are, after all, wards of the state. They are slaves to the government and should be reminded of that fact. If a recipient is found to have tobacco or drugs in his system, he would be dropped from the program. People on government aid would also lose the privilege of voting. That way they couldn’t vote for greater benefits or easier terms (most of them don’t vote, but now they couldn’t).
http://dailycaller.com/...
The author notes "hey, it's all tongue in cheek" basically, the point is still made: food stamps should be a publicly humiliating journey for anyone who accepts them, and we should be on the side of states that do so.
Today this letter appeared, a woman writing about why she had accepted EBT.
http://progressivepopulist.org/...
As we walked to the car, my daughter told me what had happened, and I sensed her resolve about having made the right decision to work for social justice as she starts her senior year in a social-work program.
We talked about you all the way to the car, and about how sorry we felt for people who were judged because they depended on support from others. But my real apology is that I did not make eye contact with you and get out of the car to talk with you as you got into your car right next to mine.
Instead, I did what many people would do: I felt ashamed and humiliated and angry about your ignorance.
If I’d had the guts to talk with you, I would have told you about my disabled 28-year-old son living with us. We have never asked for public support for him.
I grew up in a small town. For years, like many, near us when the town struggled so did we.. and our local firehouse helped provide people with cheese, bread, peanut butter, and items. There were public "food auctions" so a town could save money. Frankly, I know what it is like to grow up poor.. and to be poor as an adult as well.
We've had good times and bad. Right now, pretty good ;) But as I read through the responses this woman receives to her letter, I was most struck by this:
rose
i am a cashier and i hate to admit it but i am jealous of people who have food stamps. not because they don’t have to pay anything for groceries because i don’t have enough money for groceries and i am afraid to apply for the program. i’m afraid of the social stigma, i am afraid of rejection, and i’m afraid that it represents failure. cashiers make shit, there is too much judgment in every direction here
Let me openly tell you what is happening. When you are poor and working a job, one that doesn't pay enough for you to eat well you have no money, no resources and no ability to save. You are living paycheck to paycheck. We keep thinking the solution is to shove shame on you.. as though that will increase your income through just the use of shame and guilt. The people that they should be ashamed though are often employers who underpay those.. or for those who scorn people who do need help without knowing their details.
That cashier, with a little extra money in her pocket could do a lot of things differently. Gas for a second job. Money for her bills. Resources to improve how she lives, to hopefully get a better job because she'll have time to rest and do it rather then worry about the next paycheck.
What is happening in Kansas, and what many are proposing nationwide isn't about lowering the bills of the state - the amount of savings are minimal at best and they wil likely be offset by other costs - no, it's about creating more social stigma so that others don't apply to begin with.
They spend time working to make it OK to tell the poor they should stay poor, and it isn't our problem that they are poor, and we don't really care if they have a shot to improve that. We expect them to become Horatio Alger when they are worried about how to fund a box of ramen, and we criticize them when they can't, equating them with animals, accuse them of being whinos, demand they be tested at government expense.
When a woman looks to feed her children, is she to be ashamed because she needs assistance? Are the "14 million" disabled just 'too many disabled' should they suddenly just change their status and move on with it to starve? Have we
But welfare, food stamps, disability … it's all been warped into a lifestyle that is actively encouraged.
http://www.hannity.com/...
started to actively encourage disability and illness to get a benefits? Most here know I have a mentally challenged son. Who is unlikely to ever provide for his own, though I guess it's an outside chance. Have I only 'warped him into a lifestyle' that promotes this mentally disadvantaged disability? Should I feel some sort of shame, as Hannity and others point out?
It makes it difficult to separate those who truly need the help from those who are simply benefiting from a government that is now willing to subsidize their lifestyle.
And the cop out 'oh, some truly need it', as though someone like Hannity can effectively go one by one and decide who is worthy and who is not. Is there not already a system in place that does just that?
I use this phrase often on Kos, and I want to use it here now, because even as an atheist it hits home:
Matthew 7:9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
There are ways to lower the use of foodstamps. Increase minimum wage. Require better benefits. Lower debt assessments. And so many more. And everyone benefits. But asking us to despise or shame people who are poor and need our help isn't the answer to this problem at all.