7QT: the benefits of Food Stamps

I used to struggle with spending my food stamps for anything other than the bare necessities. After a while, though, it became too much of a hassle to scrupulously separate my shopping, and I began to realize that it was all right to spend my food stamps on anything the system allowed. Here are 7 wonderful things food stamps provide, besides just nutrition:

1. Easy meals. Some people can make healthy stuff from scratch every day; I can’t. From frozen burritos to things like pizza dough, deli meat, and bagged salads, convenience food can mean the difference between me throwing something in the oven and taking a little nap before suppertime, and me freaking out, yelling at the kids, and going out for McDonald’s.
2. Healthy convenience foods. If you don’t have to worry about your budget so much, you can buy better stuff. Instead of the cheapest frozen pizza, you can buy bake-at-home stuff with real vegetables on it. Instead of fruit cups in heavy syrup, you can afford the stuff packed in real fruit juice. Instead of spaghettio’s, you can get the good canned soup. For your husband who always forgets to pack a lunch, there’s Clif bars and V-8.
3. Stuff your kids will actually eat. Cherry tomatoes! Gogurts! Instant oatmeal! Cheese sticks! Clementines!
4. Stuff you really don’t need, but every kid should have once in a while. Lunchables, goldfish crackers, those little breadsticks-and-fake-cheese-dip things.
5. Things you can stuff in your kids’ lunchboxes. Juice boxes, granola bars, fruit snacks. These double as ways to keep your kid from screaming in the car, and ways to pack for an unexpected outing. That’s pretty darn close to a necessity.
6. Fancy ingredients. Feta cheese, olives, artichokes, hummus, avocados, fresh herbs…all kinds of things that didn’t usually make it onto my list until I had food stamps. It’s nice to be able to vary your diet more and make any recipes you want!
7. Ice cream.

See the rest of the 7 Quick Takes at Kelly’s!

Teach a man to fish…

A friend of mine had a great comment on the proverb “give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.”  The man isn’t going to live long enough to become a fisherman, my friend pointed out, if he starves in the meantime.  I think the proverb is true, but it’s not talking about two mutually exclusive things.  Yes, we need to teach people to be self-sufficient; but that’s a long-term goal, and they still need to be fed in the short-term, today.  Why can’t we do both?

Yes, I understand that feeding people can discourage them from becoming self-sufficient, and teach them to rely on charity or government aid; but the answer can’t be to cut off aid.  Let’s come up with some solutions–things like job training for people on welfare, or a gradual decrease in benefits as people’s situations improve, rather than a sudden drop-off–but let’s make sure we take care of people in the short run, too.

I recently posted about the problem of supplying living wages to people who were, through one misfortune or another, struggling to feed a family but stuck in a low- or minimum-wage job.  Many people responded, rightly, that we need to address the root problems of poverty, like the breakdown of the family and of community solidarity, instead of just slapping on economic solutions like higher wages.  But here’s the deal: things like that take time.  We can’t leave people hungry while we begin a long-term plan of restoring the traditional family so that there won’t be so many struggling single mothers or so many people abandoned by their relatives.  We can’t neglect the long term culture war, of course; but why can’t we work on both problems at the same time?

I understand that some economists will say we’re not actually helping people by giving them short-term aid, since we’re setting them up for a life of dependence; our intentions are good, but our actions aren’t actually in the best interest of the poor.  But if you’re expecting someone to start building (or rebuilding) an independent life, he’s going to need help along the way.  No homeless man is going to get off the street if he doesn’t learn how to manage money, manage his health, and support himself; but while he’s learning to do that, he still needs a place to sleep and something to eat.  And if you’d like him to go find a job so he can take care of himself, he’s not going to get many interviews if you don’t start by giving him a “handout” of clean clothes, medicine, and healthy food; not to mention a shower and a shave!

By all means, let’s teach men how to fish; but while they’re still learning and they’re not catching much, let’s share some of our fish with them.

———————————————————————————————————-

“Volunteers of America Soup Kitchen,” 1936

What’s Luck Got To Do With It?

When you think about how you got where you were, or why other people’s situations are different, how often do you think about luck?  Maybe you feel sorry for people in tough situations, but you can’t help thinking that it’s partly their fault–after all, if they didn’t have a good job lined up, they shouldn’t have gotten into so much debt…if they needed a job so badly, they should have worked harder at applying…if they wanted to live in a better neighborhood, they shouldn’t have dropped out of high school…if they weren’t in a position to get pregnant, they shouldn’t have been screwing around.

I’ve had these thoughts.  But the older I get, the more I realize how little good decisions have to do with it.  There’s a certain logic behind that horrible bumpersticker, “if you can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em”–but only if the person with the bumpersticker has never made any sexual mistakes himself.  For every couple shamed for an unmarried pregnancy, there’s a dozen more who weren’t chaste either, but who were lucky enough to never get pregnant, so no one ever found out; and there are hundreds more who made equally serious mistakes, but luckily they weren’t the kind of mistakes that cause such a public crisis.  I’ve talked to someone who thought he had the right to judge people on welfare, because he himself had “never made any poor economic decisions.”  Really?  My guess would be that he did, but that he could afford to, or someone bailed him out.  If not, I’m willing to bet he’s made other kinds of mistakes, just like everyone else has; he’s just lucky enough that they didn’t result in poverty.

Here’s another example: I recently heard from a woman who panhandles for a living, who said that she was very willing to work, but it was hard to get a job because she had shoplifting on her record from when she was 16.  Now sure, that was her fault; but what were you doing when you were 16?  I did plenty of stupid things; I’m just lucky that none of them were illegal.

This runs the other way, too: instead of judging people for making poor decisions, it’s easy to become insecure and bitter over people who didn’t work any harder than you, but happened to have the right connections to land a better job, or the family help they needed to put a down payment on their dream house.  It’s easy to feel like you’re doing something wrong, like you should be working harder, because your situation is so much worse than theirs.  But as my brother pointed out, if you’re living thriftily and working hard, but you still can’t make ends meet without some help, that’s not a problem with you.  It’s a problem with the system (or the economy, or probably just the whole fallen world). But the myth of hard work=prosperity still exists, and it’s so pervasive that we don’t even realize we’ve bought into it. Bill O’Reilly put it very succinctly when he said:

you gotta look people in the eye and tell ’em they’re irresponsible and lazy…Because that’s what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period.(Quoted in this excellent article, in which I actually agree with Obama about something)

I certainly find myself thinking this way sometimes.  But I’m here to say that I work hard, and I’m well educated, and I’m still poor.  It’s not even just about hard work and responsibility; it’s about a lot more subtle things, like upbringing and family history.  I’m not trying to say that you can blame your shortcomings on society; but I think people are so eager to reject that line of thinking that they rush to the other extreme, and act as if your upbringing and your surroundings have nothing to do with it.  If you think about it, you’re not just lucky if you’re well-educated and have a decent job; you’re lucky if your parents taught you how to save money.  You’re lucky if your parents showed you how to work hard.  You’re lucky if your parents spoke English at home.   You’re lucky if you grew up in a good neighborhood, with good influences.  You’re lucky if your parents stayed married.

I don’t know why God allows some people to have such bad luck.  But I know He doesn’t look kindly on people who attribute bad luck to moral failing.  That’s the way people thought in the Old Testament, and it’s still alive today, in the “prosperity Gospel” and in conservative ideology.  In the Book of Job, Job’s “comforters” try to convince him that he’s harboring some secret sin, and that’s what he’s being punished for.  After all, God punishes evildoers and rewards the righteous.  But Job consistently affirms his innocence, even though he doesn’t understand why God is letting him suffer.  If we believe that poor people are necessarily poor because of their own shortcomings, we’re just as bad as Job’s friends or Joel Osteen.

Assumptions about Panhandlers

My small New Hampshire town recently lost an expensive lawsuit to the ACLU, which was defending a panhandler who claimed that he had been harassed by the police.  The police had told him that standing on the sidewalk and holding a sign asking for money was a crime, which it isn’t–yet.  In the next town over, they are considering making it illegal.

These kinds of laws are usually justified as public safety concerns–a driver stopping to give money may be rear-ended, or a panhandler walking into the road may be hit.  When I researched it a bit, though, I barely found any mentions of accidents caused by panhandling.  This seems to be a way to hide the real purpose of the law.

The other motives for a law like this seem to be (a) it makes people uncomfortable, (b) it makes the town look bad, and (c) they’re mostly scammers or addicts.  None of these seem sufficient to warrant a law, in my opinion; but the issue is bringing out a lot of other ugly attitudes and confusing questions.  I certainly don’t have any solutions for homelessness, but I have few thoughts on how we should consider this problem:

• I’m not naive; I understand that some of these people are scammers, and quite a few are addicts, looking for quick cash for their next fix.  Nevertheless, I can’t quite square it with my conscience to never give to these people.  If they use my money for something bad, I don’t think my connection to the evil is direct enough to make me morally culpable (unless it was really, really obvious, like if they were already drunk).  And with that out of the way, I can’t believe that it can do my soul anything but good to offer charity in this way.  (Unless, of course, my motive is just to feel good about myself.)  Even if 9 out of 10 are fakes, what if the one I refuse happens to be the one genuinely in need of help?  (One of my friends pointed me to a lovely Fulton Sheen quote, which says much the same: “I can’t take the chance.”)
• Most people seem to think that they can tell at a glance whether the panhandler is a fake or not: “He’s young and strong;” “He was smoking a cigarette;” “His clothes were awfully clean for someone who can’t afford food.”  “I’m not going to give money to a bum drinking Dunkin Donuts.”  The problem with this is that looks are deceiving.  Someone may appear strong and healthy, but be suffering from severe mental illness that prevents him from getting or keeping a job.  And just because someone owns a phone, or a cigarette, or some nice clothes, doesn’t mean that he bought them himself; they might have been given to him.  Likewise, he may have been bought that coffee, or he may have used the money he was given to buy Dunkin Donuts, because it was in walking distance and he really wanted something hot.
• Then again, there’s this objection: “We have agencies for this.”  (Am I the only one who thinks this sounds a little too much like Scrooge?)  “Give your money to the homeless shelter instead.”  This may be the right way to go; at least we can be pretty sure that homeless shelters and other agencies are using the money correctly.  But the fact remains that a lot of people are homeless because of mental illness, and someone with severe mental problems is not necessarily going to be able to seek out the help he needs, or be able to follow the rules in a shelter or complete the qualifications for aid.  For example, imagine someone with severe anxiety entering a welfare office: it’s hot, it’s crowded, there are kids screaming, there are 3 different languages being spoken at once, there’s a complicated sign-in process, and the lady at the counter wants you to show 5 different documents to prove that you’re eligible for aid.  That would send most people running!  Then again, homeless shelters often don’t have any room, and they’re often dangerous, especially for young women.  (“Many can’t go there, and many would rather die…”)

Again, I don’t have any solutions.  (Also, this is the perspective of someone in a small town; this is a much different issue in the big city.)  But what I would like to see is a more human and accurate portrayal of panhandlers.  Enough assumptions and speculations; let’s only say what we really know.

(image license)

How Food Stamp Restrictions Can Fuel Bigger Government

The glamorous welfare life.

Missouri is considering a law to ban people using food stamps to purchase steak and seafood, as well as candy, soda, and other junk food.  I don’t think this is a bad idea, at least when it comes to the junk food.  It certainly makes sense to me that the government has a right to decide what tax-payers’ money can be spent on, and it’s not fair to immediately retort with accusations about hatred of poor people.  It’s no surprise that Rick Brattin, the representative who authored the bill, has mixed motives; in the same breath as claiming that he is trying to restore the program to its original purpose of providing essential supplemental nutrition, he adds: “When I can’t afford [filet mignon and crab legs] on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.”  Is the problem that welfare recipients have no right to buy luxuries with money that was given to them for essentials?  Or is the problem that they don’t deserve them?  Regardless, he has a point.  The government has an obligation to make sure all its citizens have enough healthy food, but it doesn’t have an obligation to make sure they have candy and chips.

After this distinction, though, it gets complicated.  So, no lobster.  Fair enough.  What about in the summer, when lobster is as cheap as chicken?  What about salmon, which is extremely good for you?  Maybe if we only let them buy frozen salmon, which is cheaper?  No chips, fair enough.  What about baked chips?  Not so nutritious, but they’ll curb your temptation to buy the greasy regular ones.  What about crackers?  What about whole wheat crackers?  Well, maybe only if they’re store brand?  What about frozen convenience foods?  After all, they’re expensive and unhealthy.  But what if you have picky kids, and your husband works all day and then comes home and you go to work, and he cooks supper, but he’s so tired he’d really like to just throw in a frozen pizza?  Well, maybe if you can provide a doctor’s note showing that you are sufficiently tired to deserve frozen pizza.  Or maybe one frozen pizza a week, but no more.  What about brand names?  They’re not any healthier than store brands, so that’s out.  Well, what about goat cheese or gouda?  They’re not really any more nutritious than plain old, cheap American cheese.  American cheese it is.

See how crazy this is getting?  And here’s the real problem: if you’re really going to enforce a policy of only nutritious, essential purchases, you’re going to have assign an army of bureaucrats to work out all the details.  And worst of all, you are going to have to authorize a lot more government intrusion.  Do you really want the government to be controlling your grocery shopping habits this closely?  Or, if you think it’s only fair for someone receiving free groceries to have severe restrictions: do you really want to set a precedent for the government to attach all kinds of strings to legitimate assistance?

Now look, if you want to stop welfare fraud, okay.  Require a photo ID to be shown with food stamps purchases.  Tighten up the regulations and investigate suspicious recipients.  But realize that you’re fighting a straw man: it appears that less than 1% of welfare money is abused.  And ask yourself this question: if you authorize the government to decide whether people on welfare have to buy Wheat Thins or Square Shaped Wheat Crackers, what are they going to take over next?

You Know…

I wouldn’t mind it if Republicans said something like “Gosh, we hate to cut food stamps, but we really need to balance this budget for everyone’s good.”  Or maybe “We really need to cut spending somewhere, but we don’t want to cut it from people who need it, so let’s focus on getting rid of welfare fraud and waste, helping people graduate from assistance, and getting the money only to the people who really need it.”  But they don’t.  Instead, you usually find them saying something asinine like “Why should these people get free stuff when I have to pay for it?” or “Why don’t these people just go get a job?”  And that’s why it’s really hard to get behind them, even if they’re right about the need to cut spending.  To paraphrase Billy Joel, I’m starting to feel like I’d rather be wrong with the Democrats than right with the Republicans.

Coming soon, a few thoughts on the proposed Missouri law restricting people on food stamps from buying junkfood, steak, and seafood.  Non-ranty, I promise.

7 Quick Takes: Ethical Dilemmas of a Welfare Queen

I’m not here to argue politics!  I’d just like to describe what it’s like for a conservative Catholic to be on welfare–a lot more welfare than she’d like.

I’m very disappointed that a search for “crazy lady in Market Basket” didn’t turn up much. This one’s from the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/middleaged-woman-angrily-demanding-price-check-on,28520/

 

1.  WIC is nuts.  Imagine me, 9 months pregnant, in the grocery store aisle, trying to find three WIC-approved cereals, each at least 12 oz. but adding up to not more than 36 oz., that my kids will eat.  Now help me find the orange juice that is 64 oz., because for some reason most of them come in 59 oz.  Now look for an approved bottle of 100% juice that is not apple juice, because you’re sick of that, but don’t get Juicy Juice, because that’s made by Nestle, which does that horrible formula stuff in Africa.  You’re not even sure if the government money goes to Nestle, but you feel bad anyway.

2.  As aggravating as WIC is, I think it’s a good model for welfare; you can only buy super-healthy things, it’s based on nutritional need (e.g. pregnant women get extra protein, and young kids get full-fat milk), you have to buy the cheapest brand available, and you have to show an ID and sign your name.

Food stamps, on the other hand…

3.  Food stamps do not cover alcohol, restaurants, or non-food items.  (If you hear about someone using their EBT for strip clubs or whatever, it’s because they’re using cash benefits–Temporary Assistance for Needy Families–not food stamps.)  They do cover soda, candy, and junk food, however.  But I’d feel bad using the government’s money for that.  Well, what about tortilla chips?  What about whole-grain tortilla chips?  How about chocolate syrup, for my kid who won’t drink milk otherwise?  How about those weird chocolate straws, for my other kid who drinks lots of milk, but has been a very good boy at the store?  What about chocolate chips?  It’s better than buying cookies, right?  Well, what if I buy the cookies in a separate purchase?  What if I buy beer for my husband in a separate purchase?  What if most of my groceries are healthy, but I hid a carton of ice cream in the middle?  Will someone yell at me?

4.  I used to separate my junk food purchases, until a couple of check-out ladies told me not to bother.  And when you’re already making 5 separate purchases, believe me, it’s a big bother.

5.  I’ve never been yelled at or shamed for using food stamps. (Well, except online.)  However, I am THAT LADY who harasses the poor teenage cashier with three separate WIC vouchers, an EBT purchase, and a regular purchase.  My record is 6 different employees called to my register at the same time.  I’m pretty proud of that.  On the other hand, when you happen to work at that grocery store, and several of them recognize you, that’s not so fun.

6.  We got on food stamps so we could afford the extra $200 a month to move to an apartment where there weren’t drive-by shootings down the street and gang symbols spray-painted on our porch.  I’m okay with that.  Now I’m thinking, we really shouldn’t spend all these food stamps we’ve accumulated, because we don’t eat that much.  But if we do, we can save money to pay off our student loans!  Oh wait, not sure if that’s okay.

7.  I haven’t even mentioned the fuel assistance, medicaid, and free tracfone, but you get the idea.  Welfare is a LOT OF WORK.  Think going to the DMV, times 10.  Every few months there’s a new round of frantic searching for paperwork and documents, phone calls, chasing down the landlord, getting a doctor’s note, photocopying everything, and trying to make an appointment that I won’t have to bring all three kids to.  This isn’t an easy way to make money.  I don’t know why you’d do it if you didn’t have to.

Join Kelly for the rest of the Quick Takes!