S.N.A.P., aka Food Stamps.

A small cut in allotments for food stamps just went into effect because "stimulus" money allocated temporarily to the program went away.

Of all the forms of government assistance, i.e., welfare, food assistance makes the most sense to me because it is DIRECT assistance.

If I were reforming welfare, the first thing I would do is prosecute the cheats. The food stamp program has it's share of cheats, and if a few hundred of them did some jail time, the program would be "self-cleaning" in short order.

This isn't political. It's a criminal matter. Hammer the cheats, period.

 

Comments

[Rivrdog]

From Rivrsis:

Just heard a GOP congressman lecture me, a food stamp recipient, of less than $14 a week in assistance, on how this largesse has deprived me of the "God-given" satisfaction of working for a living.  And how satisfied he is that these funds are being reduced as of today.  Let him attempt to live on $2 a day in food.  $2 a minute would probably not be enough to provide for his usual enjoyments - and I find it hard to believe that what he does (join the Tea Party faction in stonewalling all legislation that doesn't prevent abortions) is "work".  Accepting a job just to not do the work involved, and he wants my praise?

[Richard Bergerson]

If YOU were in charge of welfare (government assistance), it WOULD be better off.
Now I have no idea of how many, or what percentage, of welfare recipient folks cheat. Let's just say that some folks always will try to cheat.
Those supporting public assistance can always cherry-pick examples of assistance where it is not only justified, but more is needed. Those against public assistance may (?) have more personal and observed stories of apparent mis-use, that won't actually qualify as court-acceptable legal fact. Then we have the occasional news stories of individual gross abuse of the system.
Our bureaucracy sucks! One gets more "atta-boys" for handing out more taxpayer dollars and insisting that we need more (thus building their own empire of influence and salary) than one gets by challenging ten or ten thousand applicants - and maybe being wrong on ten or whatever percent because legitimately deserving folks didn't fill out the paperwork correctly.
Fraud prevention efforts should be self-sustaining, whether welfare or Medicare/Medicaid fraud highlighted by AARP (but ignored by government bodies). As a former USNB of OR bank auditor, we combatted employee fraud. We checked things out; some things employees knew, others we didn't disclose (kinda like the IRS - before they became political). Fraud prevention costs are a legitimate cost of doing business to prevent the greater cost of uncontrolled fraud, whether in banking, government or a 7/11. Let's tighten up on prosecuting the thieves so that the majority of tax-paying citizens can believe their taxes are going to the truly needy and deserving. And the "deserving" might even get more since money isn't going to the non-deserving.
But current (empire-building) government doesn't work that way. To keep handing out more and more money, one needs more employees, which makes one's empire bigger, which raises one's salary. The system is set up for accepting abuse, and woe the caring worker who attempts to swim against the tide.