NC welfare recipients can buy booze and tobacco products with taxpayer money

[Mickey'snewestfan]

The difference is one is earned, the other is a societal benefit. Defining them as the same is the problem. They are not.

Here's the issue I have with this "it's now their money..." argument. Suppose a person/couple with a child is receiving WIC, welfare and unemployment. It's all their money, right? Suppose they find a way, like getting a roommate to offset living costs, which isn't a bad idea, takes the difference and splurges on something really non-essential, like some jewelery or an expensive set of shoes or has a premium smart-phone or cable with 250 channels and HBO channels. Why should taxpayers be on the hook for those?

Why shouldn't it be up to the person receiving these benefits to make personal sacrifices to reduce the cost to taxpayers?

So the person who spends all their money on rent is fine, but the person who budgets and then spends their budget on something legal is irresponsible?

Here's the reality. There are people out there who make irresponsible choices, although working with a tight budget so that you have a little money at the end isn't one of them. But there really isn't a way to police every choice you make without making it impossible for the people who are doing the right thing. Or doing most of the right thing, or as well as they can, or trying to change to doing the right thing, which is already a lot to ask.

I can think of a family I know (I'm changing details to protect identities, but the thread of the story is true). It's a family headed by 2 sisters who have 9 children between them, 6 from Mom A, 3 from Mom B. The family lives together in a 3 bedroom apartment, they have a voucher that would let them each get a single family house with more bedrooms, but subsidized housing is very hard to get in my area so they share the crowded apartment.

Income comes from a variety of sources. Mom A works at 7 - 11 overnight, but the salary is very low so she still qualifies for rent assistance, medicaid and foodstamps. She would qualify for childcare assistance, but doesn't use it. She also receives a little child support for her youngest but it's erratic, and a SSDI check for her 4th child who has an intellectual disability. Her 3 oldest, all teenagers, work part time or in the summer, and pay for most of their own clothes and school supplies and field trips.

Mom B used to work as a home CNA doing home health but her oldest has a major medical condition and she was fired for missing work to take him to the Dr.. She's in the process of looking for a job, and of applying for SSDI for her oldest, but hasn't been successful in either so right now her only source of cash income in TANF. She gets food stamps and medicaid, and qualifies for rent assistance and childcare assistance, neither of which she uses. None of her children are old enough to work, and she receives no child support.

Working together, the family gets by. Mom A lets Mom B use her car to go to Dr.'s appointment for child A1. Mom B watches Mom's A's kids overnight, and in return Mom A lets her stay for free. Mom B watches all the little ones after headstart/school until Mom A comes home from job training. Because Mom B isn't paying for things like rent, and both moms aren't paying for childcare there is sometimes money for little luxuries like slightly nicer clothes, or cable TV (nice to have when you're trying to entertain lots of kids in a small space, in an area where playing outside isn't safe) or an outing for the children.

Let's imagine that, by choosing to share a home, and a car, and work opposite shifts the women are saving the state $1500 a month in rent subsidy, and $5000 a month in childcare. They also save themselves $1000 in car payments, insurance, and the portion of rent and childcare they'd need to pay themselves. Are we really going to punish them if they spend a portion of that money on cable or take the kids to Chuck E. Cheese? If so, what do you think they'll do -- gladly handle over the money, or think about putting the kids in childcare?

This fall the oldest of the kids left for college out of state, a minor miracle for a kid who saved her pennies and worked very hard for a scholarship. Our whole school community was so proud of her. But despite being a brave, hardworking kid who overcame the odds, she's also a 17 year old who had never spent the night in a room that didn't have another family member in it, and had only crossed a state line once before on a school field trip. She was scared of this transition. Mom A couldn't afford to take off work to take her to college, and the car's a little rickety and might not make it that far, so they bought a couple of $25 tickets on the BOLT bus and her aunt accompanied her to college, settled her in, slept in the dorm room for a night, and got back on the bus to come back home.

We don't live in Maine, but if we did there would probably be charges from her EBT card from the distant state showing up. After all, when she was there she probably bought herself a couple of meals, and the bus ticket home, and maybe helped her niece out with some things she needed like school supplies.

I am not naive or stupid. I know that my story isn't "every family", but it's one real family I know. I don't see a way that you can radically restrict how people spend their cash benefits without allowing people who are trying to reap the benefits of budgeting, or denying them the ability to make the choices that will lift their families out of poverty. People on this thread are crying out that "rent assistance should be for rent" and I agree 100%, but we already have systems in place to ensure that rent assistance, food stamps, childcare assistance, and medicaid go where they're supposed to go. The reality, however, is that people need things that aren't in those 4 categories. They need gas, and clothes, and bandaids, and toilet paper and pencils, and sometimes a bus ticket out of state to take a scared kid to college, and the only way we can provide those things for people in need is to allow people to make choices.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I worked at a little 24-hour 7/11 type place (Majik Market) about 25 years ago. I remember there were very specific items we were allowed to sell to folks using food stamps and chips and soda weren't on the list. Even a prepared sandwich was a no-go. I think it's much different today.

In my state (and I think nationally, since it's a national program) you can use food stamps to buy any food that isn't alcohol or "prepared". So you can't buy a prepared sandwich, but you can buy a 2 liter soda.

I understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm OK with where it's landed, but it does result in some unintended consequences. For example, at my local 7/11 they sell hot pizza which is just frozen pizza heated up. They sell the exact same frozen pizzas in the freezer case at the same price. A customer can buy a frozen pizza and microwave it in the store's microwave, but can't buy the hot pizza because of the way the rules work.

However, that's food stamps. The very poorest families receive both food stamps and cash benefits. Cash benefits are placed on the same debit card as food stamps, and can be used as a debit card or withdrawn as cash.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

In my state (and I think nationally, since it's a national program) you can use food stamps to buy any food that isn't alcohol or "prepared". So you can't buy a prepared sandwich, but you can buy a 2 liter soda.

I understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm OK with where it's landed, but it does result in some unintended consequences. For example, at my local 7/11 they sell hot pizza which is just frozen pizza heated up. They sell the exact same frozen pizzas in the freezer case at the same price. A customer can buy a frozen pizza and microwave it in the store's microwave, but can't buy the hot pizza because of the way the rules work.

However, that's food stamps. The very poorest families receive both food stamps and cash benefits. Cash benefits are placed on the same debit card as food stamps, and can be used as a debit card or withdrawn as cash.

Yeah, we saw a lot of similar things. You can buy the ingredients to make the sandwich, but not the sandwich

 

[laura.anne]

In my state (and I think nationally, since it's a national program) you can use food stamps to buy any food that isn't alcohol or "prepared". So you can't buy a prepared sandwich, but you can buy a 2 liter soda.

I understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm OK with where it's landed, but it does result in some unintended consequences. For example, at my local 7/11 they sell hot pizza which is just frozen pizza heated up. They sell the exact same frozen pizzas in the freezer case at the same price. A customer can buy a frozen pizza and microwave it in the store's microwave, but can't buy the hot pizza because of the way the rules work.

However, that's food stamps. The very poorest families receive both food stamps and cash benefits. Cash benefits are placed on the same debit card as food stamps, and can be used as a debit card or withdrawn as cash.

In my experience (I used to work as a cashier in a grocery store about 2 years ago), you can buy prepared food with food stamps as long as it's cold. So people could buy sandwiches from our deli as long as they were cold - we also sold both hot and cold rotisserie chickens.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

In my experience (I used to work as a cashier in a grocery store about 2 years ago), you can buy prepared food with food stamps as long as it's cold. So people could buy sandwiches from our deli as long as they were cold - we also sold both hot and cold rotisserie chickens.

That's possible. I know where the line is with pizza, but I might have it wrong with sandwiches. The deli at our grocery store sells both hot and cold sandwiches, and I've heard them tell people they can't use their card for "that sandwich" but I didn't check the temperature.

You can definitely buy "prepared food" in the sense of a TV dinner or a can of Spaghettios.

 

[OceanAnnie]

The first untruth about TANF, is that it is temporary. Unfortunately it has become a way of life for far too many. Recently Maine Wire.com found that TANF has been withdrawn at ATMs in every state in the country including Hawaii and the Caribbean, not to mention Disney World. Now I am sure that the good people of Maine did not intend to provide Disney Vacations for welfare recipients, nor trips to the Caribbean. There is a way to stop this but there is a reluctance on the part of politicians to admit that they have been chronically DUPED!

That is disturbing.

The question is, when it comes to certain benefits is there a line at all? The answer appears to be there is none.

 

[Colleen27]

The difference is one is earned, the other is a societal benefit. Defining them as the same is the problem. They are not.

Here's the issue I have with this "it's now their money..." argument. Suppose a person/couple with a child is receiving WIC, welfare and unemployment. It's all their money, right? Suppose they find a way, like getting a roommate to offset living costs, which isn't a bad idea, takes the difference and splurges on something really non-essential, like some jewelery or an expensive set of shoes or has a premium smart-phone or cable with 250 channels and HBO channels. Why should taxpayers be on the hook for those?

Why shouldn't it be up to the person receiving these benefits to make personal sacrifices to reduce the cost to taxpayers?

The problem with that thinking is that you don't teach people to make better choices by imposing the same end result for good budgeting as for bad. And besides, you once again get to the question of theory vs policy... How could this be policed without immense costs?

While you have said this with a heavy supply of sarcasm, what it more compassionate; perpetuating a state of chronic dependence on government or finding a pathway to a better, independent life. Consider Ben Franklin's comments on the poor. They are more than appropriate for today.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

― Benjamin Franklin

You're assuming that the system we have makes people "easy in poverty". With rare (and headline-grabbing) exception, it doesn't. It is fashionable to talk about the monetary value of the full complement of welfare programs, without mentioning the long waiting lists for housing assistance, limitations on childcare assistance that prohibit its' use for training to better one's employment prospects, or the limitations that set Medicaid apart from the private plans used to determine its' value (it is often compared to private-purchase family plans, but in many states it does not cover the adults in the household).

 

[lauradis]

Can they buy Funyuns, Ding Dongs, sugary soda, and other unhealthy garbage with the money? If so, might as well let them buy alcohol and tobacco. These are all legal, though unhealthy, items. Where do you draw the line?

Amen

 

[Colleen27]

That is disturbing.

The question is, when it comes to certain benefits is there a line at all? The answer appears to be there is none.

The line is drawn on eligibility. Period, end of story. And eligibility, for most programs, is based on income and assets. Expenses really don't factor in for the most part because that side of the equation is figured using a fixed cost of living allotment set by the state or county. If someone can scrape together a vacation despite a low income, or travels to visit family, or helps get a kid settled in at college, or otherwise leaves the state that doesn't change anything.

ETA: There was a lot of outrage over a news "investigation" that found a rather surprising percentage of EBT (food stamp) purchases took place out of state. The article, of course, talked about Hawaii and Florida and California. The raw data, on the other hand, painted a completely different picture - the vast majority of out of state food stamp use took place in border town grocery stores, places where people make their residence in Michigan but are so close to the state line that their closest grocery store is in Ohio or Indiana.

 

[OceanAnnie]

The line is drawn on eligibility. Period, end of story. And eligibility, for most programs, is based on income and assets. Expenses really don't factor in for the most part because that side of the equation is figured using a fixed cost of living allotment set by the state or county. If someone can scrape together a vacation despite a low income, or travels to visit family, or helps get a kid settled in at college, or otherwise leaves the state that doesn't change anything.

That all sounds fine and good. It's not addressing the examples provided by a pp, though.

ETA: I see and appreciate you had an edit. I was speaking to the Hawaiian and Caribbean vacation examples. That's not scraping by for a vacation. Those are expensive vacations that people have to work and save for in order to afford. The example the pp gave appeared to be abuse.

 

[Colleen27]

That all sounds fine and good. It's not addressing the examples provided by a pp, though.

Short of knowing the specific families involved, there's no way to address specific examples. I'm just pointing out that you don't know if that person using the card at WDW was a "welfare queen" using undeclared cash income to fund the trip, or if it was a foster mother who receives benefits for the children in her care taking those kids on a once-in-a-lifetime trip. You can't know if the person using the card in Hawaii was vacationing on the beach or attending the funeral of a loved one on someone else's dime. You don't know if that person was traveling for work or caring for a sick parent or anything else about their circumstances. And the Caribbean nation discussed in the article the PP referenced is Puerto Rico, certainly a place some vacation but also the country of origin of a large immigrant population living in the US (and IIRC, the only place in the Caribbean that the card would work; I don't believe the EBT system extends beyond US borders).

People like to assume the worst, but I've seen enough of welfare and poverty in my life to believe that assumption to be unwarranted. Most people aren't happy with a welfare lifestyle, and most do whatever they can to have better. It is ridiculous to scrutinize their every move the way that is so popular these days.

 

[Pipkin]

The problem with that thinking is that you don't teach people to make better choices by imposing the same end result for good budgeting as for bad. And besides, you once again get to the question of theory vs policy... How could this be policed without immense costs?



You're assuming that the system we have makes people "easy in poverty". With rare (and headline-grabbing) exception, it doesn't. It is fashionable to talk about the monetary value of the full complement of welfare programs, without mentioning the long waiting lists for housing assistance, limitations on childcare assistance that prohibit its' use for training to better one's employment prospects, or the limitations that set Medicaid apart from the private plans used to determine its' value (it is often compared to private-purchase family plans, but in many states it does not cover the adults in the household).

Unfortunately for a very large number of 'non workers', they will chose leisure over work every day. You are naive to assume that the headline grabbing abuses are exceptions. There is evidence to suggest that they are quickly becoming "the rule". The average family living in "poverty" in the USA often lives better than the average middle class European. You may not like the web site but the facts are taken directly from the US Census. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

 

[Colleen27]

Unfortunately for a very large number of 'non workers', they will chose leisure over work every day. You are naive to assume that the headline grabbing abuses are exceptions. There is evidence to suggest that they are quickly becoming "the rule". The average family living in "poverty" in the USA often lives better than the average middle class European. You may not like the web site but the facts are taken directly from the US Census. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Only by a specific and cherry-picked set of standards, like measuring access to air conditioning but not to health care, square footage of the home but not workplace protections for parents of young children.

I'd like to see that evidence that "non-workers" (who, I assume, are the voluntary unemployed, not those who cannot find work in this "jobless" recovery) are "becoming the rule". Because all the evidence I've seen points to declining wages and stubbornly high un/underemployment as being the reason for increased welfare caseloads (which, of course, just makes those "standard of living" measures look all the more shocking because when the working class slips into poverty they don't sell the TV and pull out the central air).

 

[Pipkin]

Only by a specific and cherry-picked set of standards, like measuring access to air conditioning but not to health care, square footage of the home but not workplace protections for parents of young children.

I'd like to see that evidence that "non-workers" (who, I assume, are the voluntary unemployed, not those who cannot find work in this "jobless" recovery) are "becoming the rule". Because all the evidence I've seen points to declining wages and stubbornly high un/underemployment as being the reason for increased welfare caseloads (which, of course, just makes those "standard of living" measures look all the more shocking because when the working class slips into poverty they don't sell the TV and pull out the central air).

The evidence is there for all to see in families in which welfare has become a generational way of life. They existed before the recession and they continue to exist now. More Americans are on disability than ever before in the history of the country. Are there more "disabled" or has disability become the new welfare or chronic unemployment benefit? Medicaid enrollees are far outpacing those who are signing up for the ACA. They will and do have access to healthcare, as they have always had. Workplace protections for parents of young children? What exactly does that mean. OSHA is in every part of our lives and businesses have never been more regulated than they are now. We are in a jobless recovery for a reason. It is indeed the elephant in the room.

 

[Colleen27]

The evidence is there for all to see in families in which welfare has become a generational way of life. They existed before the recession and they continue to exist now. More Americans are on disability than ever before in the history of the country. Are there more "disabled" or has disability become the new welfare or chronic unemployment benefit? Medicaid enrollees are far outpacing those who are signing up for the ACA. They will and do have access to healthcare, as they have always had. Workplace protections for parents of young children? What exactly does that mean. OSHA is in every part of our lives and businesses have never been more regulated than they are now. We are in a jobless recovery for a reason. It is indeed the elephant in the room.

Actually, adults haven't always had access to healthcare in my state. They aren't eligible at all unless they're disabled, no matter how poor they are. Only now, with the ACA, can the working poor begin enrolling in Medicaid.

As far as the disabled, I think it is some of both - there are more disabled, but partly because what it means to be disabled has changed. But that's unavoidable in an economy where employers can afford to be as choosy as they like. There's less willingness to work around physical limitations or medically documented absenteeism than there was in the past.

Workplace protections for parents of young children - enough leave time that they can be reasonably sure they won't be fired over sick kids or snow days, which can be used for the kids' needs and don't require employees to pay for otherwise unneeded medical visits to obtain documentation, maternity leave policies that protect all women, not just those working full time for major companies, etc.

And yes, this is a jobless recovery for a reason - because we are now a service economy, which requires a constant supply of consumers for growth. In an environment of stagnant wages and low consumer confidence, there simply isn't enough consumer demand to justify hiring and expansion.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Unfortunately for a very large number of 'non workers', they will chose leisure over work every day. You are naive to assume that the headline grabbing abuses are exceptions. There is evidence to suggest that they are quickly becoming "the rule". The average family living in "poverty" in the USA often lives better than the average middle class European. You may not like the web site but the facts are taken directly from the US Census. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

Those figures include people on welfare, the working poor, families experiencing temporary unemployment who own things from before they hit hard times, families who choose to live off savings for a while so one parent can stay home with infants and toddlers, elderly people who are relying on cash savings, and many of our enlisted personnel in the military who receive a significant portion of their pay in forms that don't count as "cash".

To draw conclusions from a sample like that above about a very small subset of the families who receive cash benefits is ridiculous.

In addition, those figures include people making significantly more than the guidelines for receiving cash benefits. For 2013 the federal poverty level for a family of 4 was $23,550, and there was no limit on savings. In contrast, to receive TANF the limit in Montana (the first state that came up when I googled), is $14,136 with no more than $3,000 in savings.

 

[lsyorke]

Those figures include people on welfare, the working poor, families experiencing temporary unemployment who own things from before they hit hard times, families who choose to live off savings for a while so one parent can stay home with infants and toddlers, elderly people who are relying on cash savings, and many of our enlisted personnel in the military who receive a significant portion of their pay in forms that don't count as "cash".

To draw conclusions from a sample like that above about a very small subset of the families who receive cash benefits is ridiculous.

Ah, gotta love the Heritage Foundations one sided slant on things, LOL!

 

[CPT Tripss]

While you have said this with a heavy supply of sarcasm, what it more compassionate; perpetuating a state of chronic dependence on government or finding a pathway to a better, independent life. Consider Ben Franklin's comments on the poor. They are more than appropriate for today.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

― Benjamin Franklin
tags: general-welfare, government

Or one could use these quotes . . .

You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.

You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

 

[Pipkin]

Ah, gotta love the Heritage Foundations one sided slant on things, LOL!

The statistics are from the US Census bureau.

 

[Pipkin]

Or one could use these quotes . . .

You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.

You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

We are an extremely generous country and private citizens donate to charities at a higher rate than our counterparts in other countries. There is a big difference between private donations and charity, which is far more efficient than government redistribution. The 50 year war on poverty has been a failure. After trillions of dollars, we have not impacted the poverty rate in this country.