Drug testing for food stamps could soon be a law in Alabama
When the 2019 legislative session begins in March, state lawmakers will have the opportunity to consider a plan that would require certain food stamp recipients to undergo drug testing in attempt to combat fraud, reduce dependency and make the SNAP program more efficient. A series of bills have been pre-filed by Bryant-Republican, State Rep. Tommy Hanes that pertain to welfare reform. His legislation calls for drug testing of certain recipients. If the recipient submits a positive sample, SNAP benefits would be taken out of the hands of the individual and given to another family member. Hanes says this is a vital component of the bill as it ensures children of the recipient will continue to receive the benefits. “It’s time to eliminate food stamp fraud,” explained Hanes. “In order to better provide for families who are in need, this issue must be addressed. We owe it to the working-class taxpayers to make this program as efficient and waste free as possible.” The legislation would also prohibit the Department of Human Resources (DHR) from requesting a waiver of federal work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents who are applicants or recipients of food stamps. The bill would require these recipients to work, provide volunteer service hours or continue their education to receive SNAP benefits. “We must enact welfare reform that reduces dependency on government,” Hanes added “Part of the solution is having able-bodied adults working. When a person earns a living it not only helps strengthen our economy, it restores confidence and self-esteem to individuals who know that they can be independent for themselves.” Substance abuse issues have long been part of public assistance policy discussions. In recent years, nearly all states have proposed some form of drug testing or screening for applicants. Nevertheless, over the weekend, Hanes came under fire from the media for his proposed legislation. He pushed back saying the “liberal news media” is “spreading false information about conservatives who attempt to implement common sense reform.” “The liberal news media is playing a role in spreading false information about conservatives who attempt to implement common sense reform,” said Hanes. Our goal should be helping folks become independent, so they are able to obtain a much higher standard of living. Left-wing media outlets have attacked me and called this reform a vilification of the poor. In attempting to make this program more efficient for those in need, these are the very citizens I am fighting for in this bill. Instead of reporting the truth, some in the press are misleading the public by spreading fake propaganda. I will never be intimidated in my fight for the working-class citizens of this state.”
Carol Gundlach: Congress should oppose Farm Bill changes that would make Alabamians poorer, hungrier
Americans across the political spectrum have long agreed on the importance of reducing hunger in our country. But the U.S. House is now considering a Farm Bill reauthorization that would do the opposite. It would be a step in the wrong direction for children, seniors and struggling families across Alabama. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a proven success with a long history of bipartisan support and a strong track record of reducing hunger, creating jobs and supplementing wages. But the proposed Farm Bill would erode our shared commitment to fighting hunger. Instead, it would punish people who have very low incomes by slashing SNAP for as many as 2 million Americans, including tens of thousands Alabama adults and their children. This misguided move would increase hunger, deepen poverty and take a heavy toll on our state’s economy and budgets. The cuts would hit especially hard in rural communities, where some stores would close without SNAP income. SNAP, often called food stamps, is the largest program in the Farm Bill. It helps more than 40 million Americans make ends meet and has lifted more than 8 million families out of poverty, including 195,000 Alabamians. In Alabama alone, SNAP benefits are spent in more than 5,000 stores and contribute $1.3 billion a year to the state economy. With Alabama’s General Fund already struggling to pay for essential services like health care and prisons, the House plan would force the state to hire more SNAP eligibility workers and create expensive systems to track compliance with new work and child support mandates. It also would force Alabama to return to the costly, ineffective practice of verifying whether applicants have cars or other assets that might make them ineligible for SNAP. The Farm Bill seeks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Half of all adult SNAP participants without a disability are working, as are 60 percent of participants with children – often in retail, construction and other jobs with low wages, irregular or seasonal hours, and few benefits. In exchange for cutting their nutrition assistance, the House plan would create an underfunded employment and training system that would do little to help people actually find good-paying jobs. The bill also would extend these stricter requirements to people who are now exempt. That would include nearly all participants with children ages 6 and over, as well as jobless Alabamians in their 50s – even though they often remain unemployed longer than younger people do, no matter how hard they look for work. Participants who cannot prove they have worked enough hours could be denied SNAP for one year or longer. These proposed SNAP changes would hurt children, too. When parents lose food assistance because they can’t find a job or their work hours drop below an arbitrary minimum, their children are deprived of nutrition they need to grow and thrive. That makes it harder for children to succeed in school – and it’s simply cruel. Another way the plan could hurt kids is by requiring single parents to “cooperate” with child support collection. Child support is critical to eliminating child poverty, and more than 70 percent of low-income custodial parents already receive child support services. But taking food off the table doesn’t help a parent pay child support; it only makes the family hungrier. The proposal also could put applicants who are victims of domestic violence or child abuse at greater risk, along with costing Alabama millions of dollars for additional child support administration. Alabama’s congressional delegation will play an important role in Farm Bill reauthorization. Our representatives will vote on the plan when it reaches the House floor as soon as mid-May. Sen. Richard Shelby is the influential new chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And Sen. Doug Jones is an important member of a bipartisan group of Senate moderates, some of whom are expected to offer their own version of the Farm Bill in the next few weeks. Alabamians are caring people, and we have a shared responsibility to keep our neighbors from going hungry. As our state’s members of Congress consider the Farm Bill, we urge them to oppose any efforts to weaken SNAP’s ability to help struggling Alabama families keep food on the table. ••• Carol Gundlach is a policy analyst for Alabama Arise, a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of congregations, organizations and individuals promoting public policies to improve the lives of low-income Alabamians. Email: carol@alarise.org.
New study reveals SNAP benefits don’t cover meal cost in Alabama
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly food budget assistance to more than 42 million eligible, low-income Americans across the country. The Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank, released a the study — How Far Do SNAP Benefits Fall Short of Covering the Cost of a Meal? — on Friday that shows meals in Alabama cost more than SNAP benefits allow — ranging from 10 percent more in Colbert County to 43 percent more per meal in Baldwin County. On a monthly basis, SNAP benefits fall short of the cost of an average meal by $46.50 per person nationwide. But according to a new study, even the maximum SNAP benefit does not cover the cost of an average meal in any of Alabama’s 67 counties. Barry Spear, public information manager for Alabama’s Department of Human Resources (ADHR), which administers SNAP, told The Associated Press that SNAP only meant to meet supplemental food needs. “It’s not the only source that they have to find food,” Spear said. “A lot of people think it’s supposed to take care of all their needs, and it’s not designed to do that.” He said individuals can join other federal programs like WIC, which gives aid to women and children, or go to food banks run by nonprofit organizations or churches. According to government records, more than 850,000 Alabamians, or 1 in 6 residents, received SNAP benefits for the entirety of 2016 (the last year the numbers are available).
Daniel Sutter: A lesson for welfare from football?
Each new football season is a time for celebration. Unfortunately we see too many stories about players’ misdeeds, and more troublingly, authorities sometimes looking the other way and enabling bad acts. Yet despite the negativity, many current and former players make great contributions to our communities. Numerous examples can be found in the finalist profiles for the NFL’s Walter Payton Man of the Year award. The assistance players provide particularly to former teammates illustrates how Americans assisted each other before our modern welfare state. But let’s consider some ways that players assist former teammates. For example, Juan Bautista graduated from medical school after playing special teams for Fresno State. Players with a chance to play professionally frequently drop classes after finishing their senior season to prepare for the NFL draft, and later may be unable to afford tuition. Dr. Bautista started a foundation to help former Fresno players complete their degrees. Miami coach Mark Richt recently started The U Network to help former Hurricanes. Networking connects players with former teammates and potential employers. Coach Richt had previously built such a network when coaching at the University of Georgia. Assistance can extend to teammates’ children. Alabama fans might recall the connection between Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram’s parents and Tide Coach Nick Saban. Mark Ingram Sr. played at Michigan State. Coach Saban was on the MSU staff, and while ensuring that players attended class, he met Ingram Sr.’s future wife Shonda. After playing in the NFL, Mark Ingram Sr. unfortunately ended up going to prison. And yet a football connection helped Mrs. Ingram keep her son on the right track and eventually led him to Tuscaloosa. Why is this relevant for welfare policy? It might be hard to imagine today, but America did not have a government welfare state until the New Deal. The 19th Century witnessed rapid economic growth, but America was not yet as rich as we are now, so hard times arguably had a greater impact on people than today. Americans still helped others, with organized aid supplementing individual and church-based assistance. University of Alabama historian David Beito has documented the assistance provided by fraternal societies like the Odd Fellows and Woodmen, who offered rudimentary life insurance. Many of these groups evolved from associations set up to assist families of workers killed in dangerous professions, like fishing and whaling. Voluntary groups assisted after natural disasters long before we had FEMA. Economist Emily Skarbek detailed how the Relief and Aid Society distributed millions of dollars of aid to and constructed temporary housing for victims of the Chicago fire. Pittsburgh’s leading citizens similarly assisted after the Johnstown Flood. Football players and fraternal orders helped individuals known to the donors, even if the connection was weak. For example, Miami alumni who never played football sent recruiters to The U Network’s job fair. We are more generous when we have a connection with the people needing assistance. A personal connection allows us to tell if external factors create a need for assistance. Americans have never liked giving alms to the irresponsible. Professor Beito, for example, describes how one 19th Century fraternal organization expelled “Drunkards” and members who played “Cards, Dice, or other Gaming” at meetings. Furthermore, we generally only assist those closest to us when poor choices have created distress. Do fraternal orders or the bonds of teammates provide an alternative to government welfare in modern America? Perhaps not. When community groups and churches provide assistance, persons without connections may not receive help. Government assists strangers and those lacking personal connections to benefactors. On the other hand, America’s welfare system, I think, has always been based on compassion and not a right to assistance. In recent decades, many governments have contracted with nonprofit organizations to deliver social services. In part, this is because nonprofits often provide help more effectively and compassionately than government bureaucrats. So perhaps we are using our past to chart a new course for welfare. ••• Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Trump administration reverses little-used welfare waivers
The Trump administration on Wednesday reversed an Obama-era policy that allowed states to seek waivers to welfare’s work requirements, saying it wants to promote employment and economic independence “as goals for every family.” No waivers were granted by the previous administration. Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Steven Wagner said the waiver option offered in 2012 by former President Barack Obama is being replaced “by an expectation that work should always be encouraged as a condition for receiving welfare.” In the announcement, Office of Family Assistance Director Clarence Carter said, “We cannot achieve the goal of self-sufficiency if meaningful work participation is divorced from welfare cash assistance.” In 2012, the Obama administration said it would be willing to grant states waivers to some of the requirements to the Clinton-era welfare reform law of 1996 – as long as governors could show they could accomplish the same welfare-to-work goals using different methods. Republicans skewered Obama, and Mitt Romney made it a campaign issue in his run for the White House. Ohio was the only state that applied for a waiver, a state run by Republican Gov. John Kasich. The application was neither approved nor denied by the Obama administration. On Wednesday, the state was informed that its application from nearly two years ago was being denied. The 1996 welfare reform law replaced a federal entitlement with grants to the states, placed a time limit on how long families can get aid and required recipients to eventually go to work. About 1.1 million families currently receive welfare assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Trump administration reverses little-used welfare-work waivers
The Trump administration on Wednesday reversed an Obama-era policy that allowed states to seek waivers to welfare’s work requirements, saying it wants to promote employment and economic independence “as goals for every family.” No waivers were granted by the previous administration. Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Steven Wagner said the waiver option offered in 2012 by former President Barack Obama is being replaced “by an expectation that work should always be encouraged as a condition for receiving welfare.” In the announcement, Office of Family Assistance Director Clarence Carter said, “We cannot achieve the goal of self-sufficiency if meaningful work participation is divorced from welfare cash assistance.” In 2012, the Obama administration said it would be willing to grant states waivers to some of the requirements to the Clinton-era welfare reform law of 1996 — as long as governors could show they could accomplish the same welfare-to-work goals using different methods. Republicans skewered Obama, and Mitt Romney made it a campaign issue in his run for the White House. Ohio was the only state that applied for a waiver, a state run by Republican Gov. John Kasich. The application was neither approved nor denied by the Obama administration. On Wednesday, the state was informed that its application from nearly two years ago was being denied. The 1996 welfare reform law replaced a federal entitlement with grants to the states, placed a time limit on how long families can get aid and required recipients to eventually go to work. About 1.1 million families currently receive welfare assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Donald Trump’s food stamp cuts face hard sell in Congress
President Donald Trump‘s proposal to slash food stamps by a third will be a hard sell in Congress, even as Republicans have tried repeatedly to scale back the program’s $70 billion annual cost. Democrats will oppose any changes to the program, which is designed as a temporary safety net for Americans who find themselves unable to adequately feed themselves or their families. Many Republicans, too, have been wary to overhaul food stamps, even as participation has more than doubled. Trump’s proposal could have a disproportionate effect on Republican-leaning states – seven of the 10 states with the highest food stamp participation supported Trump. Republicans are still eying cuts to the program, but none as large as what Trump has proposed. — WHAT TRUMP IS PROPOSING Known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the program now serves 44 million people and cost $70 billion last year. The program more than doubled in cost during the recession, and after some eligibility rules were expanded. The cost has stayed higher even as the economy has recovered, though it has slowly decreased annually. Trump’s proposed budget would save $191 billion over 10 years by shifting some of the cost to states, targeting the benefits to the poorest people, increasing work requirements and limiting some eligibility. It would also allow states to determine the level of SNAP benefits they provide. States now administer SNAP with federal money, but would have to come up with an average of 10 percent of the cost by 2020 and 25 percent by 2023. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, said shifting costs to states would give them “a little bit of skin the game” and incentivize them to improve the programs. — WHY IT’S A LONG SHOT Congress is unlikely to approve such deep cuts in the program, since it affects constituents so broadly. And farm-state lawmakers who have jurisdiction over SNAP have generally sought to preserve it, as food stamps help them win urban Democratic votes for the massive farm bill that Congress passes every five years or so. “It’s important to note, #SNAP plays a crucial role in protecting our most vulnerable citizens who’ve fallen on tough times,” tweeted House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, after the budget was released. Still, Conaway and Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., have indicated they will support some sort of SNAP overhaul in the next farm bill, due next year. “We need to take a look at our nutrition assistance programs to ensure that they are helping the most vulnerable in our society,” Conaway and Roberts said in a joint statement on the budget. It won’t be easy. The bill would need 60 votes in the Senate, and Democrats have strongly opposed any changes to the program. Republican leaders insisted on food stamp cuts in the 2014 farm bill, and the House passed legislation that would have strengthened work requirements and cut 5 percent. After negotiations with the Senate, the cut was reduced to an almost-negligible 1 percent that only affected a handful of states. Similarly, in the mid-1990s, some in the GOP pushed for a major food stamp overhaul as part of welfare reform, and some work requirements were added. But the program stayed largely intact. — WHOM THE CUTS WOULD AFFECT While a majority of SNAP recipients are in urban areas, there has been an increase in rural areas. Of the 10 states that have the most food stamp recipients, seven went Republican in the 2016 presidential election – Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. In a list compiled by the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, three states among those that have the highest percentage of recipients are strongly Republican – Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia. One of Trump’s proposals would limit government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults who don’t have dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely without finding work. The Trump administration says this would help move people off the rolls. “If you’re on food stamps, and you’re able-bodied, we need you to go to work,” Mulvaney said. Lucy Melcher of the anti-hunger group Share Our Strength says some people aren’t able to find work in their areas, and have no access to job training. She says the cuts could be “devastating.” The proposed cuts would “just exacerbate poverty for people who are already trying to work their way out of it,” Melcher said. “I don’t think there’s a person living in poverty today who wouldn’t be affected by this budget.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Lawrence W. Reed: A poverty program that worked
We’ve become accustomed to think of fighting poverty as a 20th Century undertaking, with the federal government leading the way. For that reason, this quotation from an American president might come as a surprise: “The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America.” Those words came from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 4, 1935. A moment later, he declared, “The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.” As we know, it didn’t. Indeed, 30 years later Lyndon Johnson would take “this business of relief” to new and expensive heights in an official “War on Poverty.” Another 30 years and more than $5 trillion in welfare spending later, a Democratic president signed a bill that replaced the federal entitlement to welfare and allowed states to implement work requirements, time limits, and other measures to encourage personal responsibility. As Ronald Reagan observed, “We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won.” We paid an awful price in lives and treasure to learn some things the vast majority of Americans of the 19th century — and the chief executives they elected — could have plainly told us: Government welfare programs encouraged idleness, broke up families, produced intergenerational dependency and hopelessness, cost taxpayers a fortune, and yielded harmful cultural trends that may still take generations to cure. Washington, Adams, and their successors in the 1800s DID fight a war on poverty — the most comprehensive and effective ever mounted by any central government anywhere. It was, in a word, LIBERTY, which meant things like self-reliance, hard work, entrepreneurship, the institutions of civil society, a strong and free economy, and government confined to its constitutional role as protector of liberty by keeping the peace. And what a poverty program liberty proved to be! In spite of a horrendous civil war, half a dozen economic downturns and wave after wave of impoverished immigrants, America progressed from near-universal poverty at the start of the century to within reach of the world’s highest per-capita income at the end of the century. The poverty that remained stood out like the proverbial sore thumb because it was now the exception, no longer the rule. Our free and self-reliant citizenry spawned so many private, distress-relieving initiatives that American generosity became one of the marvels of the world. U.S. population in 1900, at 76 million, was 14 times its 1800 level, yet per capita GDP had quadrupled. That explosion in production and creativity translated into a gigantic leap for average personal income and a steep plunge in the portion of Americans living in abject poverty. In a speech in the U.S. House of Representatives years before he became our fourth president, James Madison declared, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” Like the three presidents before him and the next 20 or so after him, Madison knew that if liberty were not preserved, poverty would be the least of our troubles. Meanwhile, the poor of virtually every other nation on the planet were poor because of what governments were doing TO them, often in the name of doing something FOR them: taxing and regulating them into penury; seizing their property and businesses; persecuting them for their faith; torturing and killing them because they held views different from those in power; and squandering their resources on official luxury, mindless warfare, and wasteful boondoggles. Americans of all colors pulled themselves out of poverty in the 19th century by ending slavery and creating wealth through invention and enterprise. Then they generously gave much of their income — along with their time and personal attention — to the aid of their neighbors and communities. Government assistance often displaces what private people and groups would do better and more cost-effectively if government stayed home. Politicians are not more compassionate than the population that elects them. And politicians rarely spend other people’s money more effectively than those people to whom it belongs in the first place. Based on time-honored values and Constitutional limits, Americans got the poverty issue right for more than a hundred years. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that in the last century, as we increasingly abandoned what worked and put government in the poverty business, the problem has become as chronic and intractable as the expensive bureaucracy erected to eradicate it. ••• Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Atlanta, Georgia and author of the new book, Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character and Conviction. This essay is adapted from his chapter in the 2015 anthology, For the Least of These: A Biblical Answer to Poverty.
Felony drug offenders now eligible for SNAP, TANF benefits in Alabama
On Saturday Alabama joined most U.S. states by allowing people with a past felony drug conviction to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, as well as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance, according to a news release by Alabama Arise. The lifetime ban on SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, and TANF benefits for drug offenders grew out of a 1996 federal welfare reform law enacted by former President Bill Clinton, though the law does allow states to request a waiver. Though most other states requested a waiver before, Alabama included reinstating the benefits in a 2015 prison reform law sponsored by Sen. Cam Ward (R-Alabaster) with a floor amendment offered by Sen. Linda Coleman (D-Birmingham). Restrictions still apply to drug offenders seeking benefits, including the completion of their sentence and probation requirements. Further, persons with a drug offense in the past five years may be required to pass a drug test to receive TANF benefits. People previously denied Snap or TANF benefits because of a drug offense can apply at a local Department of Human Resources office after Monday. Further, households already receiving benefits but have a household member not included because of a drug conviction can report the “newly eligible person” to the household’s caseworker. “The end of Alabama’s SNAP and TANF bans is good news for state budget and for families,” the Arise news release said. “The policy change will help cut corrections costs in the cash-strapped General Fund budget by making it easier for released prisoners to reintegrate into the community, which will help reduce recidivism. Importantly, restoring SNAP and TANF benefits also will help prevent hunger and homelessness among some of Alabama’s most vulnerable families.” Officials with Alabama Arise estimate that 30,000 to 80,000 Alabamians would become eligible for SNAP benefits under the change, with TNF benefits being harder to monitor because they are more difficult to secure. Both programs are funded by federal dollars, so the influx of new beneficiaries will add no new costs to the state.
Email Insights: Bradley Byrne highlights federal spending crisis
U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne took to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday to deliver a speech on how out-of-control federal spending is reaching crisis level and could result in a catastrophe for the next generation. In an email Tuesday afternoon, Byrne released the following video of his speech where he talked specifically about means based entitlement programs, including Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, among other welfare programs, noting spending within these programs has ballooned in recent years, despite improvements in the economy. We have reached a point where we must get serious about reining in our out-of-control spending or else we may fall victim to a similar fate that many nations throughout history have experienced. A full transcript of the video can be found below. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about one of the biggest problems facing our nation – out-of-control spending. At this very moment the national debt sits at over $18 trillion dollars. We have not arrived at this point because of the actions of one party or one administration. Over the years, both parties have enacted programs that increased our debt. That said, we have reached a point where we must get serious about reining in our out-of-control spending or else we may fall victim to a similar fate that many nations throughout history have experienced. Here in the United States, our spending problems are reaching crisis level, and we are effectively leaving behind a catastrophe for the next generation. The basis of the American dream is that if you work hard, you can leave behind a better future for your children and grandchildren. That fundamentally American vision is in jeopardy due in part to our irresponsible spending. I am a new and very proud grandfather. My grandson, MacGuire, is about to turn one and already his share of the national debt – before his first birthday – is over $40,000. We cannot turn a blind eye to this problem and pretend that it will just get better. Let me explain why. There are two basic forms of federal spending: mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Mr. Speaker, when most people think of the federal government, they are probably thinking about discretionary programs. This is money that goes to things like our military, highways, national parks, agriculture, and medical research. The good thing about discretionary spending is that each year Congress has the ability to control these spending levels through the appropriations process. Since Republicans took control of the House in 2010, we have had some success in cutting funding to various federal agencies. For example, agencies like the IRS and EPA have seen their budgets cut in response to egregious executive overreach. While it may seem like it covers the majority of government operations, discretionary spending actually only makes up about one third of all federal spending. The other portion is what we call mandatory spending. This, along with the interest on the national debt, makes up almost two thirds of all federal spending. Now here’s the really bad part about mandatory spending: it is on auto-pilot. Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending does not require annual appropriations from Congress. Instead, as long as someone meets the requirements, these programs dole out money without any action from Congress. Within these mandatory spending programs are what we call means based entitlement programs, including things like Medicaid, Obamacare, food stamps, welfare, and the like. For example, in Fiscal Year 2012, the federal government spent almost $800 billion on over 92 programs aimed at lifting Americans out of poverty. Despite that record spending, too many Americans simply stopped looking for work. The system is failing the very people it was designed to help. While many of these means based entitlement programs have good intentions, they aren’t supposed to be permanent. These programs were created to help lift people out of poverty, not keep them there. That’s why it shouldn’t be a surprise that during the recent economic downturn spending on these means based entitlement programs ballooned. What is surprising however is that as the economy has improved, the spending on these programs has not gone down. In fact, spending on some of these programs remains at all-time highs. Now, Republicans and Democrats both agree that Americans shouldn’t be stuck in poverty, and that’s why we should put party politics aside and come together to address this dangerous cycle of government dependence. We need to reform these means based entitlement programs to put a real focus on workforce training to help connect Americans with the skills they need to get a good paying job that meets workforce demands. We could block grant, through the appropriations process, money to the state governments and allow them to craft poverty fighting programs based on their state’s specific societal problems and economic needs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that reforming these mandatory spending programs won’t be easy, but I didn’t run for Congress to come up here and make easy decisions. I doubt my colleagues did either. Before I leave this body, I want to be able to look at my grandson MacGuire and know that I have been a part of a real effort to rein in spending and put our nation on a fiscally stable path for the next generation. We won’t be able to make any real progress toward that goal without serious reforms to these means based entitlement programs. That is what is driving our debt, and we cannot keep looking the other way as the national debt skyrockets. So, Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in addressing our nation’s spending crisis. Let’s come together and make the tough choices, let’s get our spending under control, and let’s leave behind a better America for the next generation.”
I’m a conservative, and I think it’s time we take the politics out of food stamps: guest opinion
Over my coffee yesterday morning I read the AL.com reader comments on a post about food stamps. I can’t help but take a moment to weigh in on the flawed argument that embarrassing those who need government assistance is how we address the ever-growing reliance on much-needed support. To understand my thoughts on the issue, though, I think it’s important you know who I am and where I came from. The short version: I know too well about poverty and hard times because I saw it firsthand growing up and again when I left home for college with very little money of my own. I am one of three kids of a mother who had us all between the ages of 16 and 20. My mother and stepfather spent most of my life working minimum-wage jobs at places like Pizza Hut, Walmart and grocery stores. I know about the shame and stigma of food stamps because my parents struggled to get on and off of them for years. This was back when food stamps resembled coupon books rather than debit cards. When we were off them my stepfather — one of the kindest, hardest-working men I’ve ever met — would often work two to three jobs at once. When I left for college, I rode 300 miles on an overnight Greyhound bus alone to get to orientation. I became the only child in my family who graduated high school and the first in my extended family to go to a four-year university. I worked odd jobs from day one, until a part-time job counting cars on the side of the road led to a full-time job in transportation statistics. Shame isn’t the answer. Those who need help are often already ashamed to ask for it, and those who are abusing the system are beyond shame. I write this to give context to my beliefs before anyone of you says that since I’m Republican or, worse, a tea-party Republican, I must not get it. I’ve heard it all before: I must have no heart. I can’t possibly understand. I’m mean and cruel and out of touch. The fact is I do know. I do get it. My first two decades spent in and around the cycle of poverty convinced me that we need to do better. That requires an honest conversation without partisan politics and name calling. We’ve got to look for solutions to strengthen families and encourage them to do more and to do better. Just because I’m Republican, I don’t want people to starve and be homeless any more than I believe that all Democrats think people should have everything handed to them. This rhetoric on both sides keeps us from crafting local, state and federal policies and encouraging the community action that would make a real difference in those who need temporary aid. We need comprehensive welfare reform. Period. Anyone who says what we’re doing now is working isn’t paying attention. According to a 2013 Cato report that analyzed U.S. Department of Agriculture data related to food stamps, “roughly 48 million Americans receive (such) benefits, costing taxpayers more than $78 billion per year.” Yet according to the USDA, nearly 18 million American households remain “food insecure.” This means an estimated 18 million American households have inconsistent access to food and don’t eat regularly. This fact should lead to a heartbreaking wake up call that we need to do better. Shame isn’t the answer. Those who need help are often already ashamed to ask for it, and those who are abusing the system are beyond shame. When you and everyone you know have a government-issued cell phone, food stamps and other government assistance, you’re not worried about shame. Children are brought up only knowing that they live in a system that provides barely enough to get by. What I long for is a world where the cycle of poverty isn’t accepted and repeated generation after generation. Those who live like this are what most people think of when they think of welfare. Instead, we need to return to what welfare (in all of its many forms) was intended to be: a stop-gap for those who hit a rough time and need help to get back on their feet. Today’s letters were related to food stamps, but food stamps are just a symptom of a bigger problem. We need to promote community education projects for those vulnerable to continued use of government assistance to learn healthy financial management and strategies to break the cycle. We need people in our communities to answer pleas for help with more than a free phone or food stamps. We need to promote job training and dropout prevention programs that will help those who want to help themselves. We need to elect men and women who know that the government isn’t the answer. Our welfare problem is bigger than food stamps; it goes to the core of what we want our nation to be. An honest discussion is the only way to address our real problems and open the door to the American Dream for everyone. This column appeared first on AL.com. Apryl Marie Fogel is a new Alabama resident who works as a conservative political activist.
