A Tennessee lawmaker is vying for control of what Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cardholders can and cannot buy with federal dollars.

In January, State Rep. Sheila Butt introduced a bill that would ban Tennessee shoppers on public assistance from buying food with no perceived nutritional value. According to Butt, current rules allow taxpayer money to fund people’s “unhealthy lifestyle choices.”

“I go into convenience stores almost every day and see the most non-nutritional foods on the counters and in the aisles marked ‘EBT Approved,’” said Butt. “By allowing their purchase with EBT cards, we are actually enhancing diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity in at-risk communities.”

The Republican Majority Floor Leader of the Tennessee House of Representatives plans to model the prospective junk food ban off statewide standards for public school cafeterias. First-time offenders who buy prohibited items would be fined $1,000, while second and third offenses would amount to $2,500 and $5,000 fines, respectively. Grocers caught selling the forbidden foods would be subject to the same fines as shoppers.

Historically, Republicans haven’t exactly been advocates of state welfare programs. GOP politicians, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Congressman Mike Conaway, have been particularly critical of EBT cards, which are part of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)–formerly known as the Food Stamp program.

Considering Trump’s current administration, not to mention the Republican-controlled House and Senate, drastic alterations to EBT could very well happen under his term.

Within recent years, officials have suggested drug testing recipients to determine if they qualify for benefits. There has also been a reemergence of work requirements across the country. Today 22 states enforce that if you are an “able bodied person” between the ages of 18 and 49 with no dependents, and work less than 80 hours a month, then you are only eligible to use EBT benefits for three months out of every three years.

In June 2016 federal authorities rejected Maine Gov. Paul LePage’s efforts to remove soda and energy drinks from EBT-approved items. In a scathing letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the conservative leader blamed the Obama Administration and “junk food manufacturing interests,” and threatened to overhaul Maine’s EBT program altogether. LePage claimed that “billions” of taxpayer dollars are being spent on “candy and soda.”

“It’s time for the federal government to wake up and smell the energy drinks,” said LePage in a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which funds SNAP programs “Doubtful that it will, I will be pursuing options to implement reform unilaterally or crease Maine’s administration of the food stamp program altogether. You maintain such a broken program that I do not want my name attached to it.”

Maine would have become the first state to pass such a provision. With 18 percent of Maine residents relying on EBT benefits (the third-highest rate in the United States after Oregon and Mississippi), LePage’s failed motion had the potential to severely impair nearly one-fifth of Maine’s population of 1.3 million.

While unhealthy foods encompass one side of the argument, Missouri Republican Rick Brattin would also like to prohibit users from buying certain “luxury” food items, such as steak and seafood. His intent is to bring EBT back to its original purpose: nutrition assistance. However, some critics consider this to be attack on poor people rather than a promotion of healthy eating habits.

“It just seems really repressive,” said Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University and author of the book “Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America.” “I don’t see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods. Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?”

As these political figures tout their efforts to promote health and wellness, they often overlook systematic challenges that low-income Americans face. The percentage of obesity in the United States has increased from about 13 percent to 35 percent since the early 1960s. Oftentimes, these poor eating habits can result from a range of societal issues including, but not limited to, insufficient healthy food options in economically-challenged areas, inconsistent work opportunities, and lack of education–all of which can fuel the multidimensional cycle of poverty.

Although one may expect geographically isolated areas known as “food deserts” to be the leading cause of EBT recipients buying junk food, Joe Cortright from the Atlantic thinks otherwise. He attributes the influx of obesity and diabetes in poor communities to household income and education as well. After these factors are taken into consideration, distance from nutritional food explains less than 10 percent of the variation in consumption of healthy foods. Therefore, perhaps politicians should devote more energy to providing work opportunities and educational training for America’s poorest citizens, rather than punishing poor people with rigid diet restrictions.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Conservative Lawmakers Propose Stricter EBT Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

After years of debate, California Governor Jerry Brown has finally given in to liberal legislators and advocates of the poor by eliminating a California welfare rule that many believe inordinately targets poor mothers of color. The rule goes by many names–the “Welfare Queen” rule, the family cap, and formally in California as the Maximum Family Grant Policy–and prevents families from receiving more benefits if they have additional children while receiving benefits.

California’s revocation of the policy is projected to cost the state a projected $220 million each year, and will eventually be funded by an account for inflationary increases to welfare benefits. With Brown’s decision, California joins a list of seven other states to repeal the rule, which once existed in some form or another in nearly half of U.S. states.

The rule is a byproduct of the criminalization of welfare recipients that began in part with Ronald Reagan’s 1976 presidential campaign rhetoric:

Reagan ran a campaign largely based on the anecdotal evidence of a few criminals who defrauded the U.S. welfare system, with the conclusion that welfare fraud was a pervasive plague in the U.S. that could only be eliminated by cracking down on the “welfare state.”

The stereotype of the “welfare queen” has persisted as a woman, usually black, on welfare who persistently has children, does not work, and lies to receive greater handouts.

“Welfare queen” rules emerged in the early 1990’s as a solution, with the belief that if women were to not receive additional benefits for additional children, that they would stop having additional children. Not only have studies found that the rules have no distinguishable impact on birth rates among mothers who receive benefits and are subject to a family cap, but the rules have been criticized as degrading and dehumanizing to poor mothers.

Opponents have long held that children shouldn’t be penalized just because they were born into a poor family, while advocates of the policy claim that the estimated additional $130 families will be receiving will not be enough to lift families out of poverty. But ultimately, California legislators decided that the policy was ineffective in its goals, perpetuated unfair stereotypes, and punished children in deep poverty for elements out of their control.

However, this is just a first step to de-constructing the “welfare queen” image, which is unfairly projected on poor mothers.

There are still many other states with family cap rules. Additionally, public perception of mothers and families on welfare is often flawed. For example, pervasive myths such as welfare recipients buying alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food with SNAP benefits are simply untrue. SNAP benefits only apply to non-ready-to-eat food items with small exceptions for eligible disabled, homeless, or elderly recipients who can purchase select restaurant items in a few states.

Similarly, one of the most common welfare recipient stereotypes is the lazy non-working adult who is on welfare for years without ever working. Contrarily, 20 states have work requirements for TANF (the program for cash welfare assistance) recipients, including California.

The myth that most people using welfare stay on it for years also isn’t true. Many areas only allow single adults to receive SNAP for three months while unemployed, and many places have a lifetime limit on how long an individual can receive welfare benefits–California’s is 48 months.

California and many other states have a long way to go in deconstructing the harmful stereotypes of poor mothers and families they have perpetuated. But California has shown that the first step is possible, and that strong legislatures and citizens prioritize the livelihood, dignity, and opportunity of poor communities.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fall of the “Welfare Queen” in California appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I like to keep an open mind about our government and how different states run differently, but there are some things that I feel like would make more sense if every state did them the same way. Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage (R), has reinstated a policy that would make people have to work for food stamps. No more sitting around on your ass waiting for that welfare check to come in, nope, you have to actually work for the money.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

I think that this is one of the greatest ideas ever, but I also wonder why they have to reinstate such an idea, and why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Wasn’t the original idea of food stamps and welfare just to help people who are down on their luck and trying to find a job? When did we allow welfare to become a way of life? In fact, when did we start allowing people on welfare to become lazy and just accept a handout without having to work for it? I can’t say  that I remember a time when everyone understood the value of a dollar and what a good work ethic is because I’ve never lived in a time where that held true, but I know that at one point in this country our citizens knew what they had to do in order to get by. Nowadays you can pop out a couple of kids, get on welfare, and just sit around waiting for that money to be deposited in your account. You don’t have to actively look for a job, volunteer, or commit to attend a workforce program. You can just say you need the money and the government will hand it on over, the more kids you have the more money you get.

I am no stranger to the ways in which some people have found to manipulate the system. I’ve heard stories of people who will get on food stamps or welfare, take the government’s money, and buy themselves a brand new iPhone or a new pair of Jordans or any other material thing that you don’t need when you are living off of welfare. Do you know where that “government money” is coming from? That money is coming from my pocket. That money is coming from the guy who works a 50-hour work week on minimum wage trying to make ends meet because he understands what hard work and supporting his family are really all about.

Do people not realize that when it comes from the government it’s actually coming from the people!? That’s why we pay taxes, so our government can supplement the many things that we need as a nation, and part of that goes to supporting those who are on welfare. If you are an able-bodied person who can work and is on welfare then there should be a stipulation that says you have to be doing something rather than sitting at home watching Real Housewives of New Jersey or hanging out with your friends. Why not volunteer or participate in a skills training program? Be an active member of society, be a part of your community in a positive way, and teach your kids that a handout is something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids good work ethic and respect for our government.

Under Maine’s new policy people capable of working would be limited to three months of food stamp benefits over a three-year period unless they work a minimum of 20 hours a week, volunteer a certain number of hours for a community agency, or participate in a state skills-training program. This was the point of welfare: to help you out until you can get back on your feet and support yourself and your own family again. Reinstating this policy is something that all states should think about doing (if they aren’t already)!

Way to go Governor LePage and good luck to the people of Maine!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Hopson via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Actually Have to Work for Food Stamps in Maine appeared first on Law Street.