Record numbers receive food stamps as USDA turns blind eye to recipients’ finances
Food stamp distribution has skyrocketed since the U.S. Department of Agriculture renamed the program Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008 and began pushing states to give federal food aid to people without verifying their finances.
President Obama’s latest proposed budget includes $72.5 billion for the SNAP program, a 30 percent increase over $55.6 spent in 2009. The program is on track to double in size by 2011 — as recently as 2008 it accounted for only $37.6 billion. Since the start of the recession in late 2007, food-stamp rolls jumped from 27 million individuals to 38 million, or 13 percent of the total U.S. population. The federal government hasn’t distributed food aid to this many people since the Great Depression.
“Applicants will not need to provide documentation verifying their resources,” wrote Jessica Shahnin, associate administrator for SNAP in a letter to all regional SNAP offices encouraging them to lower barriers to entry for people looking for food assistance.
Anybody who receives other federal aid, such as Medicaid, automatically qualifies for food stamps in most states — a situation known as “categorical eligibility.”
“Broad-based categorical eligibility … refer[s] to the policy that makes most, if not all, households categorically eligible for SNAP because they receive a non-cash … funded benefit or service, such as an informational pamphlet or 800-number,” says Shahnin.
This means that anybody who inquires about a brochure for federal assistance is automatically eligible for food stamps.
“When a household is categorically eligible, it means that the state agency does not use certain program rules, such as asset and gross income limits.”
The push for simplifying eligibility requirements began in earnest two years ago when states faced administrative hurdles due to budget shortfalls. The answer to welfare programs like SNAP was to streamline the transfer of federal dollars to needy families by eliminating many steps in the process.
Historically, a family had to have less than $2,000 in assets to qualify for the program. Guidelines have become less stringent. Normally, a family of four must bring in less than 130 percent Federal poverty level, or about $2,389 per month. However, today SNAP offices are encouraged to only verify a person’s weekly income, if anything, and not the money he or she might have in the bank.
“You’re creating a cycle of government dependency,” said Tad DeHaven, former deputy director of the Indiana Office of Management and Budget. “I don’t want to deny people who are in need, particularly in an economic downturn — the question is how do you want it delivered? I would argue it’s preferable to have the private sector — private charities, churches and civic organizations provide for the poor rather than the government.” DeHaven said government officials chronically under-represent their rates of error and fraud because it is to their benefit to see the budgets for their programs expand.
“The woman who grooms my dog has told me she is on food stamps … and her parents live in an upscale neighborhood,” says DeHaven. “These rules don’t take into account what your family has, and it undermines traditional family roles of supporting each other.”
Some observers are beginning to question whether the lack of eligibility verification is leading to increased abuses.
“In these economic times, there is a great need for assistance everywhere, including those living in rural areas. Our efforts have always been motivated by the need to provide nutritional benefits to those truly in need,” said Rep. Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican and ranking member for the House Agriculture Committee. “However, we also have a responsibility to stay vigilant in ensuring that these benefits go to those who truly meet program eligibility requirements. With growing deficit spending, the need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the program remains an important priority.”
“We’re moving away from just providing aid to people who are defined as poor,” said Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “We’re moving to a European model where we’re now going to pitch this to all low-income folks, not just people who are destitute. It’s become wealth redistribution, not a safety net.”
“The reality is it is pork-barrel politics for congressmen who come from these agricultural states,” Tanner said. “It creates demand … and has always been a favorite program of the farm lobby.”
Supporters of the policy call increased eligibility an excellent move, and say that focusing on what kind of car a person has doesn’t matter if they have lost their job and can’t put food on the table.
“You can’t eat your house, you can’t eat your car,” said Larry Goolsby, a former food stamp manager now working as legislative director at National Association of State SNAP Directors.
“It doesn’t fit with the philosophy of helping people in need to tell them, ‘You must get rid of everything you own of value in order to feed your children.’”
While he adds the program is designed to be a short-term fix, there is no time limit on how long people can continue to receive food stamps. Goolsby says SNAP programs are heavily audited at the state and federal levels, and that improper claims remain under five percent.
However, high-profile fraud cases, such as this one where 30 percent of inmates in an Iowa prison were still receiving benefits, or the Ohio woman with $80,000 in savings who received food stamps highlight the need for vigilance.
You can reach the author by emailing: ak@dailycaller.com.
(2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
This creates a vicious cycle. More money remitted out of the private-sector economy means more job losses and job losses mean reduced household incomes. Once household incomes start going down the dependency upon the government is increased.
That my friends is how progressive politics works. Don’t worry about where it comes from, just worry about how you will look spending other people’s money to create more people who are forced to support you because they have no choice.
Now that’s real democracy.
Do you remember the Regan years? They were not good for the poor or the people on hard times. Remember how he got us out of the recession he spent almost 3trillion dollars. At the time it was the biggest debt this country had seen. Government cheese. I had worked in the Steel Mill for seven years and the bottom fell out. I got my unemployment and cheese. I had a new born and I couldn’t get food stamps, or should I say I could have gotten 22 dollars It cost me about ten or twelve dollars in gas to go get them. Never be ashamed of getting help. I don’t care what kind of car you have or the house you live in, if you need help take what you “NEED” and leave the rest to the next person.
““You’re creating a cycle of government dependency,” said Tad DeHaven”
Absolutely true. Welfare programs make people totally dependent on the government. These programs are meant to provide aide for people who are down on their luck. They were never intended to become a way of life for several generations of Americans.
If it gets easier to get food stamps I might just have to get in line. I mean I’m paying for them so I might as well get some of my money back. It’s the least I can do for my self.
Keep an eye out for the Kennedy’s. They’ll be wearing wigs and really, really BIG shades.
You guys have no idea how bad it is out here do you?
I have a very good idea. But if taxes weren’t so high and spending on socialist boondoggles weren’t so high it wouldn’t be as bad. You got it bad. That sucks but its not my problem and I should not have to be burdened with it. I’d rather give people a job then a hand out. But thats just me. I’m sick of having my money taken from me and given away to people. I want it given back to me. I worked for it.
Can you tell me more about this job you want to give me? At this point I am not too picky…
Well guys, as a real live hard core conservative who can’t get food stamps- or a job here in the USSRNYC, and my only income is my unemployment, I have to disagree. I really hate Obama and hate that I am unemployed, but the standards do need to be lowered. In New York my unemployment check exceeds the income requirement. I have savings of $20. I have to say it would be welcome news to lower the eligibility. What makes it even worse is watching the person in front of me in line pull out their benefit card to pay for their groceries and then drive away in their Lexus SUV while I walk home. So lower standards and police who is getting benefits. Please don’t call me a parasite. Hire me, I will relocate. I am smart and hard working.
ONE entitlement program which I support – As a US Soldier having a family of 4 I had to apply for aide when I was much younger, the help was much needed and greatly appreciated. Hang in there Ben don’t let these a$$holes get to you things will get better. The only parasite is one who chastises (shows how small and insignificant they really are) those trying their very best to make their way through tough times.
Thanks , Its OK to play the ‘lazy’ card in a boom economy, but not now. I can’t even get an interview. This is truly terrifying.
The Food Stamp program is totally corrupted. Eventually the people that actually need the program will be crowded out by the scammers and users in society.
You learn to be a very careful shopper when you are using food stamps. For example, instead of buying a big package of filet mignon at $8 or $10/pound, you talk the butcher into making up separate small steaks, all of which will price-out at just a few cents over an even-dollar amount. And you pay for them separately, so you get your change in cash, in amounts close to $1 each. This permits you to buy and enjoy a bottle of wine with your filet, and enjoy life as you should.
Make sure you do not leave out the caviar. They go well as an appetizer before the filet Mignon and Chateau Lafite.
What a country! WHAT A COUNTRY!! We’ve worked it out so a retired Rothschild can get Food Stamps. WHAT A F**KING COUNTRY!!
My working long hours everyday to pay for those food stamps, however, is hardly a snap.
How d’ya feel about working those long hours to bribe the terrists in Iraq and Afghanistan not to shoot at our troops? And then buying the caskets when they go back on their word?
So the terrorists are just as dishonest as Barry and not live up to their words. I am as disappointed as them progressives are now.
Misery and Suffering (poverty) is directly proportional to the funds set aside for its relief. Entitlements are causing people to become parasitic and will destroy the host! Let’s not let our congressmen continue buying goodwill. The greatest charity is to give a person a good job and yes work is honorable.
Now, now…. The object of these lowered standards isn’t to facilitate helping people in need, as Goofy Goolsby says. The object is to destroy the will of people to work so they will be dependent of the government to live. Then, they’ll willingly vote for whatever schemes will provide them with more. When you have an administration that gleefully demonizes those who work, you’ll see many more giving up honorable work for the hogshead and pair of shoes they’ll get from their masters.
exactly sg,this is about appeasing a base more than helping people.while they claim such concern for those unemployed they pursue policies that would add to the problem such as cap and trade,tax increases on businesses,and the health care fiasco.they also ignore the illegal immigration problem.as typical all through this nonsense the middle class gets the middle finger