For Those Who Want to Impose Limits on the Use of Federal Benefits

[Flying Pig]

I don't think people quite realize that, yet. This stuff isn't about efficiency or cost-saving, not even unnecessarily or inhumanely- even if it worked, the amount of money invested into this stuff is so bare there isn't really anything left to save- it's absolutely about humiliating poor people. Conservative politicians have whipped up such a hate-storm against the poor that they have to be seen to be doing something, and degrading measures like this allow them to pose as being tough on the poor without having to make the sort of very deep, general cuts that ultimately do capital more harm than good.

I think it's also about creating a sense that the poor are different, which didn't really exist when the welfare state was first created. Social security as I remember it was always presented as a kind of collective insurance policy - we pay into things like the NHS, the State Pension and unemployment benefits through taxes when times are good, with the understanding that we might not ever need them but on the off-chance that one day we might. The point was always that the young, healthy employed people of today might tomorrow be old, sick or unemployed. Nowadays - I think post Thatcher - the rhetoric is far more that the poor (and particularly the unemployed) are a kind of species apart, and that benefits are something that 'we' the taxpayers give to 'them' the poor. The Thatcherite myth that hard work necessarily brings economic prosperity is attractive and comfortable - it stops you worrying, because it totally rules out the possibility of things going wrong for 'good people like us' - but it's horribly damaging to the people it excludes.

Taken to its logical extreme, I note that on the recent propaganda leaflets with the government spending pie-charts pensions - the ultimate 'pay in so you can take out' scheme - were placed in the same slice as all other benefits without even an explanatory note, so this rhetoric has become really quite absurd.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it's also about creating a sense that the poor are different, which didn't really exist when the welfare state was first created. Social security as I remember it was always presented as a kind of collective insurance policy - we pay into things like the NHS, the State Pension and unemployment benefits through taxes when times are good, with the understanding that we might not ever need them but on the off-chance that one day we might. The point was always that the young, healthy employed people of today might tomorrow be old, sick or unemployed. Nowadays - I think post Thatcher - the rhetoric is far more that the poor (and particularly the unemployed) are a kind of species apart, and that benefits are something that 'we' the taxpayers give to 'them' the poor. The Thatcherite myth that hard work necessarily brings economic prosperity is attractive and comfortable - it stops you worrying, because it totally rules out the possibility of things going wrong for 'good people like us' - but it's horribly damaging to the people it excludes.

Run for office, I vote for you.

 

[Borachio]

Taken to its logical extreme, I note that on the recent propaganda leaflets with the government spending pie-charts pensions - the ultimate 'pay in so you can take out' scheme - were placed in the same slice as all other benefits without even an explanatory note, so this rhetoric has become really quite absurd.

Oh pensions are just ridiculous! How can people still fall for that malarkey?

It makes a lot of sense for very rich people. And people on public sector pensions can do very nicely, thank you.

But after all that money that went south from pension funds here there and everywhere? I never did take the bait of buying into a private pension. Save £500,000 for a measly £15 k a year pension, if I'm lucky! Who do they think they're kidding? Not that I expect to live long enough for it to be worthwhile anyway, but that's another matter.

And the latest thing is that you'll be able to do exactly what you want with your pension pot on retirement. What a field day scammers are going to have with that one, eh?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think people quite realize that, yet. This stuff isn't about efficiency or cost-saving, not even unnecessarily or inhumanely- even if it worked, the amount of money invested into this stuff is so bare there isn't really anything left to save- it's absolutely about humiliating poor people. Conservative politicians have whipped up such a hate-storm against the poor that they have to be seen to be doing something, and degrading measures like this allow them to pose as being tough on the poor without having to make the sort of very deep, general cuts that ultimately do capital more harm than good.

That's been the conservative mantra forever. This is little different from the Poor Laws following Enclosure. I know you've studied that. What we're seeing now is attempts towards revision to the old norm. It's a reaction to the more progressive version of poor relief as anything else.

 

[Cutlass]

Maybe its because infants don't eat lobster and steak?

My wife and I qualified for WIC when our first two kids were born. I don't recall either of us feeling demeaned. I think we appreciated the extra eggs, cheese and milk to be honest.

And at the time you were on it, if some government watchdog was auditing your shopping list to make sure you spent the money as some politician dictated, how happy would you have been with that?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's been the conservative mantra forever. This is little different from the Poor Laws following Enclosure. I know you've studied that. What we're seeing now is attempts towards revision to the old norm. It's a reaction to the more progressive version of poor relief as anything else.

Yes and no. The actual policies you mention are neither specifically liberal nor specifically conservative: there were plenty of modernising liberals who expressed utter indifference to poverty, and plenty of paternalistic conservatives who genuinely (if patronisingly) worried about it quit deeply. The difference is, when conservatives support these policies they tend to dramatise them, as they dramatise all their policies, and if the policies are malicious that produces malicious dramatics. Liberals haven't historically been much less malicious, but they've tended to emphasise a utilitarian rationality which discourages theatrics.

At present, yes, it's pretty one-sided, because conservatism and especially American conservatism has degenerated into a stupid, spiteful and short-sighted movement, and there's no way to dramatise mean-spiritedness that masks it to the unconverted. But historically, it's more complex than that.

That said, the analogy to the Poor Laws is pretty reasonable. There's the sort of ritualised humiliation of the poor isn't new, it's just gained a thin veneer of civilisation.

 

[MobBoss]

And at the time you were on it, if some government watchdog was auditing your shopping list to make sure you spent the money as some politician dictated, how happy would you have been with that?

Absolutely fine. A treat night for us back then was a movie rental and some popcorn.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And at the time you were on it, if some government watchdog was auditing your shopping list to make sure you spent the money as some politician dictated, how happy would you have been with that?

The problem with this is the problem with most of the actual supervision that goes on.

That watchdog would probably be drawing a paycheck that could have provided the benefits to five other families.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Absolutely fine. A treat night for us back then was a movie rental and some popcorn.

I prefer the idea of cashless welfare, where the government simply provides you a set of food, controlled media as well without luxury commercials and education. That way you have zero welfare cheating via the end users.
You will still have some corruption most likely in the bureaucratic level.

 

[cav scout]

Maybe its because infants don't eat lobster and steak?

My wife and I qualified for WIC when our first two kids were born. I don't recall either of us feeling demeaned. I think we appreciated the extra eggs, cheese and milk to be honest.

But adults eat steak and lobster!

If it wasn't for the government dictating what kind of food you purchased you and your wife could have been living large and eating good! As for feeding your baby... well you guys could have scrounged up a few ketchup packets right?

And at the time you were on it, if some government watchdog was auditing your shopping list to make sure you spent the money as some politician dictated, how happy would you have been with that?

So I guess you don't know how WIC works.

WIC stands for Women, Infants and Children and it is specifically for pregnant/nursing women and children under age 5 who are nutritionally at-risk. The goal is to provide nutrition to youngsters in their critical development phase. It is a separate and distinctly different program than SNAP (aka "food stamps") where you get a debit card with dollars deposited each month that you can spend on whatever kinda "food" you want.

With SNAP (can you guess what the "N" stands for?) you can purchase things like Dr. Pepper, Godiva chocolates, Lunchables, etc... pretty much anything as long as it is not booze, smokes or hot prepared food (the deli counter fried chicken mentioned early wouldn't work).

WIC is different- the government dictated exactly what Mobby and his family could purchase. You get multiple kinds of WIC "checks" during a time period and you can only use a WIC check for the specific food item listed on the check. So you might get an $8 dollar fruit/vegetable check, another check for baby formula, etc. The type of checks you get are tailored for your individual nutrition situation. For example, If you have high cholesterol then the type of food checks you get could be modified to low cholesterol items by the WIC office.

Not sure where you live here in the U.S. Cutlass but here are the rules in Washington State where Mobby lives: WA State WIC Guide 2015. This is a 38 page rule book that all WIC recipients are required to understand and agree to.

If you look at the canned fish rules for example (nursing mom's are allowed an alottment of canned fish) you will see that the canned fish WIC checks only work for "regular" tuna- albacore (which is a bit more spendy) is not allowed.

If you break the rules you will get in trouble and can face criminal prosecution. An example in the news recently was a woman who had formula from her WIC checks that she didn't need so she offered it online for free to someone in need. When she found out that the person she gave it to ended up selling it she complained about him but she also got in trouble because any unused WIC items must be returned to the WIC office, not given away.

Now despite all the complex government rules and auditing WIC is considered the most successful and cost effective food program in the U.S. Recipients like Mobby don't feel demeaned because they are provided with specific food items.

But God forbid anyone raise the issue reforming SNAP: "ZOMG this is a war against the poor and demeaning!"

The food processing industry, diabetic supply companies, big pharma and the high fructose monoculture agribusiness conglomerates thank you for your mindless knee jerk reactions!

 

[uppi]

The nanny state at its finest.

If the program is so effective, why not extend it to everybody? Just think of the health benefits!

 

[El_Machinae]

Because it's not efficient to do so. Only a subset of people need specific help. Providing that help is expensive.

Target, specific welfare programs will always be required. Some people need no more than a temporary cash gift to get on their feet. Others will need specific aid. It's paternalistic, but honestly sometimes paternalism is actually required.

 

[MobBoss]

But adults eat steak and lobster!

If it wasn't for the government dictating what kind of food you purchased you and your wife could have been living large and eating good! As for feeding your baby... well you guys could have scrounged up a few ketchup packets right?



So I guess you don't know how WIC works.

WIC stands for Women, Infants and Children and it is specifically for pregnant/nursing women and children under age 5 who are nutritionally at-risk. The goal is to provide nutrition to youngsters in their critical development phase. It is a separate and distinctly different program than SNAP (aka "food stamps") where you get a debit card with dollars deposited each month that you can spend on whatever kinda "food" you want.

With SNAP (can you guess what the "N" stands for?) you can purchase things like Dr. Pepper, Godiva chocolates, Lunchables, etc... pretty much anything as long as it is not booze, smokes or hot prepared food (the deli counter fried chicken mentioned early wouldn't work).

WIC is different- the government dictated exactly what Mobby and his family could purchase. You get multiple kinds of WIC "checks" during a time period and you can only use a WIC check for the specific food item listed on the check. So you might get an $8 dollar fruit/vegetable check, another check for baby formula, etc. The type of checks you get are tailored for your individual nutrition situation. For example, If you have high cholesterol then the type of food checks you get could be modified to low cholesterol items by the WIC office.

Not sure where you live here in the U.S. Cutlass but here are the rules in Washington State where Mobby lives: WA State WIC Guide 2015. This is a 38 page rule book that all WIC recipients are required to understand and agree to.

If you look at the canned fish rules for example (nursing mom's are allowed an alottment of canned fish) you will see that the canned fish WIC checks only work for "regular" tuna- albacore (which is a bit more spendy) is not allowed.

If you break the rules you will get in trouble and can face criminal prosecution. An example in the news recently was a woman who had formula from her WIC checks that she didn't need so she offered it online for free to someone in need. When she found out that the person she gave it to ended up selling it she complained about him but she also got in trouble because any unused WIC items must be returned to the WIC office, not given away.

Now despite all the complex government rules and auditing WIC is considered the most successful and cost effective food program in the U.S. Recipients like Mobby don't feel demeaned because they are provided with specific food items.

But God forbid anyone raise the issue reforming SNAP: "ZOMG this is a war against the poor and demeaning!"

The food processing industry, diabetic supply companies, big pharma and the high fructose monoculture agribusiness conglomerates thank you for your mindless knee jerk reactions!

This information is correct. Back then, all it was for was extra milk, cheese and eggs. Wife learned to make some killer omelets back then.

But this was back when, as a private in the Army, I still didn't really make enough, so I also delivered pizza and parked cars at concert events at the Tacoma Dome for extra money. And no, I never felt demeaned because I came from a background that you worked hard for what you got, and you did what you needed to do to support your family. No sense of entitlement here.

 

[cav scout]

The nanny state at its finest.

If the program is so effective, why not extend it to everybody? Just think of the health benefits!

The nanny state at it's finest is when New York banned large soda serving sizes for everyone. You aren't allowed to spend your own money on something because it is unhealthy and you are not deemed to be responsible enough to make a decision for yourself. Even though you want something and you have the means to fulfill that want you are prevented from doing so by the government.

*****

The distinction with WIC and SNAP is that they are nutrition programs designed to meet specific needs. SNAP is designed to alleviate hunger while WIC is designed to provide specific nutrition to mothers and kids because even though they were already on SNAP they were making poor food choices resulting in critical nutrient deficiencies.

If you are a recipient of a needs-based program then you are receiving a gift/charity/assistance from others to alleviate that specific need, not provide for all of your wants.

The ONLY reason that SNAP is so permissive on which "food" a recipient can purchase is because the processed food industry reaps massive profits from this program. It's basically corporate welfare at the expenses of tax payers and the recipients who suffer the ill effects of a diet gone haywire. SNAP is a big reason why the average American diet has changed so drastically for the worse over the last 50 years.

Protip- when a 10 year old receiving food assistance suffers from adult-onset diabetes you might be doing your nutrition program wrong.

 

[uppi]

because it is unhealthy and you are not deemed to be responsible enough to make a decision for yourself.[...]

And because people are poor, that reasoning is suddenly valid?

Protip- when a 10 year old receiving food assistance suffers from adult-onset diabetes you might be doing your nutrition program wrong.

No. If that is the case you have bigger problems than your nutrition program.

 

[MobBoss]

No. If that is the case you have bigger problems than your nutrition program.

His point was that the diabetes results from a bad nutrition program.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, is it not?

 

[El_Machinae]

And because people are poor, that reasoning is suddenly valid?

Well, some welfare services need to be stacked with paternalism. Some needn't be. It's mostly a question of which should be which.

 

[cav scout]

And because people are poor, that reasoning is suddenly valid?

Oh no, the reasoning is still invalid whether rich or poor. Poor people can afford a Big Gulp soda from their local Kwik-E Mart without needing any government assistance (you can get a super-duper sized soft drink at McDonalds for $1 for example). And if a poor person chooses to fulfill one of their wants by purchasing fizzy sugar water with their own money then more power to them and keep the government out of it.

Don't confuse and conflate the problem of the how the nanny state increasingly limits individual freedoms with the stated purpose of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program which is designed to meet a person needs, not to fulfill their wants by depriving another person of their wants.

No. If that is the case you have bigger problems than your nutrition program.

My point is that the nutrition program has strayed from it's stated purpose and is now a prime driver of the unhealthy American food culture that is causing a massive health epidemic.

 

[Sonereal]

The ONLY reason that SNAP is so permissive on which "food" a recipient can purchase is because the processed food industry reaps massive profits from this program. It's basically corporate welfare at the expenses of tax payers and the recipients who suffer the ill effects of a diet gone haywire. SNAP is a big reason why the average American diet has changed so drastically for the worse over the last 50 years.

While I agree that the food industry is benefiting from the program, I don't agree that SNAP's permissiveness is only because of the food industry's want. A quick Google search says that there are over forty-five million SNAP beneficiaries.

In 2013, one in five American households, or 20 percent, participated in the SNAP program. In 2013, there were 23,052,396 households that participated in the SNAP program, which was 20 percent of the 115,013,000 population.

Source

If we say that each household only has vote, then there are twenty-three million voters receiving SNAP benefits. In 2012, roughly 120 million people voted in the general election, so twenty-three million voters isn't a small sum. While this hypothetical block of voters most certainly would not align on all issues all the time, a politician running for election that proposes significant SNAP reform would be giving his or her opponent a hammer to beat him or her with for the rest of the election.

In other words, I think the industries selling the food would prefer the benefits remain permissive, as do the beneficiaries, and any changes to the way SNAP benefits are handed out would become self-inflicted wound for a politician running for a general election.

 

[uppi]

His point was that the diabetes results from a bad nutrition program.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, is it not?

There is no substance to this point: People are not eating unhealthy food because of the nutrition program, they are eating unhealthy food because they want to and it is cheap. Unless the nutrition program somehow bans buying healthy food, it is not the culprit.

Well, some welfare services need to be stacked with paternalism. Some needn't be. It's mostly a question of which should be which.

I believe in personal freedom, so I reject paternalistic welfare programs on principle. In my opinion food stamps should not even exist.

Don't confuse and conflate the problem of the how the nanny state increasingly limits individual freedoms with the stated purpose of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program which is designed to meet a person needs, not to fulfill their wants by depriving another person of their wants.

That sounds surprisingly communistic: [...] to each according to his need. Apparently freedom is just for the rich in America.

My point is that the nutrition program has strayed from it's stated purpose and is now a prime driver of the unhealthy American food culture that is causing a massive health epidemic.

See above: The unhealthy food culture is the problem, not the nutrition program. I do not see at all why people should select unhealthy food because they are is some program.

Or is healthy food banned under SNAP? In that case I apologize.