Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
A recent discussion on the UMaine forum centered around the use of welfare, specifically food stamps. While many, if not most, acknowledged the need for such a program, the conversation centered around two topics: corruption and regulation.
Everybody has stories of corruption, but what you don’t hear is of the 35 million people well-served by the food stamps program.
Many of the arguments on the forum centered around supposed corruption in the welfare system. Posters said food stamp recipients have big-screen televisions and told stories of recipients buying small items with food stamps and then buying booze or cigarettes with the change.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, which administers the food stamp program, the average gross monthly income for households receiving food stamps is $673, and the average household size is 2.3 people.
Nowadays, food stamp funds are put on a debit card, and purchases are exact. Before the current system, people received actual food stamps, but they were not interchangeable with actual money. One could buy a gallon of milk, costing $3.50, with a $5 food stamp, and would receive a $1 food stamp and 50 cents of actual money. The opportunity to game the system was and is relatively small.
Whether or not the government should tell food stamp recipients what they can and cannot buy is not as black and white as whether or not the food stamp system is rife with corruption, but it’s still clear-cut.
Telling food stamp recipients what they can and cannot buy is elitism and class snobbery of the worst kind. Just because others are less fortunate does not mean you or I can tell them how to live their lives.
There are already restrictions on what people can buy with food stamps. Cigarettes and alcohol are already out, as are hot and takeout foods and almost everything you don’t eat, including animal food.
The average monthly benefit per person for July 2009 was $133, which is a pretty slim grocery bill. That’s a pittance, and the likelihood of people on that small of a budget buying dozens of donuts is pretty small. Buying unprepared foods, such as fruits, vegetables and grains, is the best way to stretch that money.
Health is a major problem in this country, and the poor are disproportionately affected. A study by the USDA found that 1 in 5 low-income households buy no fruits and vegetables each week.
But the answer to the problem is not as simple as telling welfare recipients they can only buy Raisin Bran instead of Lucky Charms. A more effective approach, and one that would have a longer-lasting effect on all Americans — not just those on food stamps — is known as education. The same study concluded that “the largest positive influence on fruit and vegetable expenditures was a college-educated head of household, regardless of income level.”
Let them have their cake, but make sure they know what’s best for them. An hourlong class on the healthiest and cheapest options in the grocery store and how to easily prepare them would be simple, effective and minimally taxing on attendees, but even that smacks of condescension in my mind. Those on food stamps should be held to the same standards as those without assistance. Just because they’re eating off tax dollars doesn’t mean they should lose all choices and all luxuries.
It’s more important the entire country learns how to eat right. Instead of outlawing Doritos for poor people, how about outlawing Doritos in general? Make three servings a day of vegetables and fruits each mandatory; failure to fulfill both results in a fine, and the third offense lands you in jail.
It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? It’s just as ridiculous when it’s done to others, but the superiority of those opposed to welfare programs is nothing new. Only when everyone realizes those down on their luck are not part of a lesser class can we be a Great Society.
William P. Davis is editor in chief for The Maine Campus.
