Poll Results on Food Insecurity
Circumstances can change quickly. One moment you’re doing great, then you find yourself struggling a few years later. I know, I’ve been there.
I left a comfortable full-time job in May 2004, going from part to full-time in real estate. My income took an immediate drop from a nice steady salary. I started grad school but also began getting urban planning consulting projects and one client had me on a monthly retainer. I’d weathered the worst of it, or so I thought. I had a stroke and the recession hit.
I struggled for two+ years before filing a disability claim. In the meantime I applied for help with the Missouri Food Stamp program. Thankfully my disability claim was approved within 30 days and I received my first direct deposit months later. I received food stamps for less than 9 months. It wasn’t much, but boy did it help me when I needed it.
Due to the very healthy income I had while working for others, my disability income is above the national average. Still, it is just 20% of what I was bringing in a decade ago. I’ve reduced my expenses and added a boyfriend, so I’m back to feeling comfortable.
Here are the unscientific results from last week’s poll:
Have you, a family member, or friends, experienced at least a month of “Food Insecurity” in the last 5 years?
No 39 [78%]
Yes 10 [20%]
Unsure [1] 2%
Twenty percent is about what I expected, but I can’t draw any conclusions from these results.
“There are still too many people in Missouri who have to decide, ‘Do I pay the rent or buy food?”’ said Scott Baker, the director of the Missouri Food Bank Association. “The hunger problem is real and significant. The safety net is strained already, and I don’t know how the state’s food pantries would be able to meet additional demand.”
Missouri had about 915,000 people receiving food stamps in August. That’s down from a peak of nearly 962,000 in December 2011 but still well above the 724,000 recipients in August 2008. The federal government pays the full cost of the benefits while states administer the program. (KMOV)
You may not see it, but many face food insecurity. In some cases it may be there own fault, but others may have bad timing of circumstances beyond their control. If they had savings to last at least 8 months they may have burned through it by now.
— Steve Patterson
Legitimate aid should be extended to those who need it. The current disability scandal reminds us that disability aid is not being extended to just those who need it. And we should place verifiable conditions on those who receive any sort of public aid. For example, those who are unmarried and are receiving any form of public assistance and who continue to bear children should either be dropped from the program or face other consequences (and based on the liberal audience here, I’ll leave it at that). While we need to be charitable, we also are obligated to be equitable and just. And recklessly doling out dollars to the many who take advantage of our charity is not equitable and it is not just. Now I’ll go to WORK.
Is legitimate aid related to legitimate rape?
In the case of actual rape, I would place those victims in the category of “those who need assistance”. In the case of those who sleep around like pigs in a wallow, I would place those willing participants in the category of “those who don’t deserve assistance.”
and what of the innocent children? Just let them stave? Or do we feed them and let the parents stave at the end of the table?
The children should be removed from the home and placed in foster care until they are adopted out. Those who are not adopted out will remain in foster care and continue to be supported on our tax dime. Hell, it’s better than living with one or two pigs in a wallow! And the “parents” should get the boot!
are you licensed as a foster parent? have you or are you willing to adopt? i have worked within the foster system (and my wife and I are foster parents) and i can tell you that there are simply not enough foster families to take every child from their inadequate parents. and many of the foster parents that we do have are only in it for a paycheck, so I’m not sure they are any better of an option.
So what are your thoughts on gay marriage? If the state won’t let you legally marry, the only alternative you have as a parent is to be legally single.
I’ll repeat – I agree that some on welfare get pregnant just to receive increased benefits (and I agree that that’s wrong), but many receiving government benefits these days are doing so for very valid reasons – job loss, health issues, disability – so there really is no one-size-fits-all answer. Marriage may be your litmus test, but I know married couples who are poor parents and single people who are great parents. I even know people in long-term relationships who are great parents, even without a legal marriage license. Life is complex – there are no easy answers!
I don’t know of many gay couples who, married or not, are forced to deal with the issue of unwanted pregnancy, so I don’t think gay marriage has anything to do this this conversation.
if anyone intentionally becomes pregnant in order to receive additional welfare, they will be very dissapointed. TANF runs out after 5 years, no matter how many additional children you have, and the extra $100 in SNAP benefits won’t do much for you.
but yes, there are lots of people receiving disability who should not. I know of one mom who gets $750/month for her child who was diagnosed with ADHD (when in fact a more appropriate diagnosis would be PTSD from the abuse she inflicted upon him).
Another fox (non) news talking point. To which scandal are you referring to? The only one I can think of off hand is the recent sham piece on 60 minutes where they cite ONE SSDI ALJ and ONE lawyer. Did you even bother reading the report before drinking the Kool-Aid? At 166 pages, it’s a doosie by a conservative Oklahoma republican Senator (no surprise there) that looked at 3 SSD offices. How many is that out of the SSD program? Glad you asked. There are 10 regional offices, 169 regional hearing offices, 5 national hearing centers, and 1 national assistance center. And they focus on just 3, and one of those was a satellite office of a regional. So because they couldn’t get the facts they wanted, they dug and dug and dug some more until they did, and in the process disregarding all the contrary evidence in their wake.
http://www.ssa.gov/appeals/ho_locator.html
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0d1ad28a-fd8a-4aca-93bd-c7bf9543af36
And just who would you test? Steve? He gets around and publishes a blog so surely he can work. So why not? Oh, that’s right, he doesn’t fit the “profile” so he gets a pass. He’s lucky enough to have a blog you must like since you read it, so he gets a pass. Never mind that doctors, possible lawyers, and an assortment of other people already reviewed his case and determined him disabled, you and yours get to armchair judge him and others. All while ignoring the MASSIVE waste of other benefits and tax subsidies. Look in your backyard at Ellisville and the waste going on with the Walmart Tiff application. But no, that’s different. Instead, let’s attack those less fortunate because they just suck at the teat of America. Oh, and they don’t have a blog you like.
But hey, let’s test recipients. Nevermind that food stamps once started: “The USDA’s food subsidy programs developed out of the need to dispose of farm production deemed surplus under commodity price support programs. Today, food subsidy programs are supported by farm interests, anti-poverty groups, and organizations of state and local program administrators. Farm and food subsidy programs provide both rural and urban legislators reasons to vote for increased USDA funding.”. – See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/food-subsidies#sthash.rGXUHdIQ.dpuf
Or how about:
“What Are Some Characteristics of SNAP Beneficiaries?
In 2010, about three out of four SNAP households included a child, a person age 60 or older, or a disabled person. Most people who received SNAP benefits lived in households with very low income, about $8,800 per year on average in that year. The average monthly SNAP benefit per household was $287, or $4.30 per person per day. On average, SNAP benefits boosted gross monthly income by 39 percent for all participating households and by 45 percent for households with children.” http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43175
Or how about:
“The benefit increase associated with ARRA will end early in fiscal year 2014, leading to a decrease in average per person benefits from an estimated $134 a month in fiscal year 2013 to $130 a month in 2014. Because of that decrease, spending on SNAP is expected to decline in 2014, even though participation is projected to rise slightly. After 2014, the average per-person benefit will rise at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent, CBO estimates, reaching an estimated $161 a month in 2022. Nevertheless, with a projected decline in participation, CBO expects spending to fall by about 9 percent between 2014 and 2022.”
Or this:
“Beginning in the late 1990s, lawmakers began to roll back some of the eligibility restrictions that had been put in place by PRWORA. For example, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 farm bill, P.L. 107-171) relaxed the requirements for participation of legal permanent residents. Changes to federal regulations also allowed states the option to expand categorical eligibility.” http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributes between $10 billion and $30 billion in cash subsidies to farmers and owners of farmland each year..1 The particular amount depends on market prices for crops, the level of disaster payments, and other factors. More than 90 percent of agriculture subsidies go to farmers of five crops—wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton.2 More than 800,000 farmers and landowners receive subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers.”3 – See more at: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies#sthash.OhnNb8CU.dpuf
Those pesky republicans supporting their Agricultural interests. Helping people was just an add-on. I could go on, but I have to work.
Yes, you have to work so you can support yourself and two other families who either cannot find work, or don’t want to find work. Regardless, you’re supporting BOTH. I was surprised that you dismissed the Oklahoma senator’s credibility because he is conservative and republican? You, the liberal homosexual people-advocate who claim to be open-minded, casual in your observance of anything orthodox, broadminded and accepting? Give me a break! Sit back and wait for the results of the final results of the disability scandal investigation to unfold. Multi-millions have been stolen, misappropriated and/or wasted, and the number will grow into the billions before those who are responsible are brought to justice. And those senators pursuing the investigation are just snarky enough to get to the bottom of the scandal–which gives me hope!! As with all types of welfare, there are many deserving people who benefit from the many programs. Unfortunately, there are significant numbers who are not deserving, but who still benefit from the many programs. It’s those that we need to prune out as dead wood. I’m thankful that there are those in congress who advocate for the working man so that every penny he earns isn’t allocated to the pool of sponges who frequent the clubs late into the morning hours, who sleep late into the afternoons, then watch TV all afternoon until it’s time to get dressed for another night of clubbing. My 6th grader has a geometry test tomorrow, and he’s ready to review some theorems.
Wow. All the more reason people dislike those living in Wildwood and out west. Pat yourself on the back.
A cash benefit probably makes more sense than running all sorts of programs like section 8, tanf, snap, medicaid, etc. The simplest way would be to run it as a negative income tax and funnel everything through a super Earned Income Credit on annual taxes. That wouldn’t provide much in the way of immediate assistance, so that’s one problem. But getting everything into a single benefit allows for simpler administration and political oversight.
A cash program also has the benefit of being removed from social engineering and social judgments. When the program is administered through EBT cards or by application to an agency (like section 8 or medicaid), then it enables politicians to control the choices that beneficiaries make. So buying cigarettes or lipstick with SNAP cards becomes controversial. And politicians will try to condition benefits on various hoop-jumping, such as sobriety. While just handing somebody cash does have the risk that they will buy drugs or guns, they can do the same with in-kind benefits too (with some conversion costs).
Privatization would be the ideal, of course. More experimentation and creativity, rather than the drab drudgery of the DMV; more compassion and excitement, rather than the pedantry of prejudiced politicians. But I’ll grant that it’s nowhere close to happening.