Food stamps serve purpose, but let's enforce standards

According to an article by Associated Press writers Mark Levy and Patrick Walters, food stamp recipients in the Keystone State may soon have to pass an asset test.

Don't they already?

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, households are eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) if they make less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level and do not have more than $2,000 in assets ($3,250 for those who are disabled or who are older than 60). Recipients are required to register for work, accept appropriate jobs or enroll in a work training program. States are not required to enforce eligibility limits, and many stopped doing so during the recession.

The new decision simply reinstates enforcement of Pennsylvania standards, which are less stringent than federal limits, as a way to cut spending. Pennsylvanians are eligible for SNAP if they make less than 160 percent of the federal poverty level. That's $35,300 for a family of four.

Granted, many folks in this area qualify, and I hope recipients use the program to buy nutritious food for their families, freeing up other income for utility bills, health care and other necessities.

I'm sad to say that's not always the case. We've all seen women dressed to the nines with a fresh set of acrylics, or families with carts full of potato chips, soda and candy bars in lieu of oranges, peanut butter and milk break out the Access card at the grocery store.

Not to say that everyone using SNAP is taking advantage of the system, but it's far too common for this taxpayer's liking. And why not, if the government isn't going to enforce eligibility or monitor usage?

If the government goes to all this trouble to set eligibility requirements, why aren't they enforced? If this program is designed to help low-income people become self-sufficient, a claim made several times on the website, why isn't the use of these benefits monitored? Why aren't budgeting seminars mandatory? When are they going to drop ice cream, candy and soda from the "foods allowed" list?

It's my own personal conspiracy theory that lawmakers want us reliant on them as a way to ensure their own standing. With that in mind, it's plausible this assessment test is smoke and mirrors. But who's to say society can't set its own standards? Here are a few to consider:

- You don't need food stamps if you:

- Are considered a regular at one or more drinking establishments.

- Have gotten a manicure or pedicure not paid for with a gift certificate in the past month.

- Have more than basic television channels.

- Own at least one gaming console or have purchased a video game in the past month.

- Spend more on cigarettes or lottery tickets than on fruits and vegetables.

- Have been on vacation in the past 12 months.

- And despite what the government says, if you have $2,000 in a bank account, you don't need food stamps.

Go ahead, call me harsh, but food stamps are for people who can't afford food, and people who can afford vacations, manicures and regular jaunts to the local watering hole can afford groceries.

And no, Wendy's and Coney Island don't count.

Vicki Escarra, president of Feeding America, said cutting food assistance to reign in government spending "lacks both compassion and reason," according to the AP article. But, if recipients are taking advantage of SNAP, aren't they the ones lacking compassion and reason? SNAP is not funded by the government, an entity with seemingly endless amounts of money at its fingertips; it's funded by each and every American. The government doesn't create revenue; programs, grants and departments are funded by tax dollars. The fewer government resources we use, the less we pay; and we all pay, whether through property, personal or income taxes.

Even if government eligibility rules were less stringent, there's such a thing as personal ethics. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. The government doesn't owe anyone anything; we as taxpayers owe ourselves lower taxes and a reduced deficit by using only what we truly need from governing bodies.

I've written before about my mother's choice not to accept government assistance shortly after my parents divorced in 1986, but it bears repeating. I was only 9 years old when she sat my brother and me down and said, "I qualify for food stamps, but I would rather do this on my own. I promise, you'll always have food, clothing and a roof over your head, but we'll have to do without in other areas." We had some tough times, but she was good on her promise and things improved.

That was probably the most influential event of my life. She showed us it's OK - even good for us - to cut back to the essentials, and while the going might be tough at times, it's worth the sense of pride of taking care of one's own business.

(Nicolov is an assistant editor at The News-Item and writes "Don't Get Me Started" for each Friday edition. Contact her at julie_n@newsitem.com)

Sign up for Text Alerts

Sign up for e-mail newsletters