So, was reading the Philadelphia Inquirer over coffee before work this week, as I am compelled to do. I actually am so old school, I do not read this newspaper on a Kindle, iPad, iPhone or computer. I read an ACTUAL NEWSPAPER! Anyway, I came across this article......
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20120110_Pennsylvania_to_impose_asset_test_for_food_stamps.html
So, the basic premise of this decision by Pennsylvania's government is that if you have $2,000 or more in savings, regardless of your income, you do not qualify for food stamps.
Wait....WHAT?
Let me preface these comments with a necessary disclaimer: I am a registered Republican. Which means my opinions on matters of social justice and economics are meaningless to you equally knuckleheaded Democrats. I understand. But I will blog away regardless.
This is quite possibly the most shortsighted decision possible for this program. To call this "dumb" is insulting to those things that are truly dumb. For numerous reasons, there is poverty in this country. Conversely, we happen to be one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. So, it makes complete sense that there should be mechanisms in place to help feed people in this country who lack the resources to adequately finance proper nutrition.
In my opinion, having $2,000 in savings should be the MINIMUM you have in savings to qualify for food stamp benefits. It is a positive indicator that you are committed to stable personal finance, are able to understand how to budget and save, and are on the road to eventually (hopefully?) not needing government subsidy. The food stamps are a necessary part of the delicate financial picture for low-income households, and help support these people. Taking away food stamps for those who have been able to, in this low-income situation, cobble together a meager $2,000 in personal savings is not just unfair, it is punitive.
There is a very fine line between getting by and being broke for low-income households. Having $2,000 in the bank ain't living the dream (that's to you, Pennsylvania government) if you're making $22k a year. Enacting this rule encourages low-income households to NOT use proper budgeting and savings techniques.
Think about this down the line, Pennsylvania needs to run an asset test on you. Can't have more than $2,000. So, you've saved a little, but can't put it in the bank. So, every gainfully employed person is going to either be spending that money, or putting it in a shoebox under the bed. You think crime in North Philly is bad now, wait till folks on food stamps need to pass that asset test. That's cash money in those rowhomes, just ready for the taking.
If you have less than $2,000 in savings, and have the same low-income profile as the person who may have saved $2,000 or more, you should not get food stamps. You should get FOOD. Radical thought. If you do not have the wherewithal to have any financial basis, then we're going to eliminate the middleman for you. Until you PASS the asset test, you get the same amount of value in actual, balanced food products. The government has done this before, and we certainly have the ability to construct a basic, balanced box of food to be regularly available for pickup (and even delivery) for our most needy, low/no income citizens. Once you've risen up a little, can PASS the asset test, then you get your card, and gain the ability to choose how the food stamps will help augment and support your food and nutrition requirements.
I recognize that this is not a perfect solution, is rather harsh, and all that stuff. But which is worse? Enacting a rule that penalizes folks trying to do the right thing, and encourages folks to do the wrong things or enacting a rule that benefits people moving up and away from needing subsidy in the first place, but still provides necessary food for those in poverty?
Regardless of what side of the political fence you sit on, the Pennsylvania "asset test" food stamp rule is something that ALL of us should be communicating with our elected officials about. It is a very bad thing.
