Over the years, many states have tried to attach different conditions to public assistance programs for low-income Americans. These conditions include things like work requirements, which limit benefits to people who are currently working or actively pursuing employment, and drug testing, which limits benefits to people who are not currently using illegal drugs. Both of these policies have been in the news lately as Republicans at the state and national level seek to move assistance programs in a more conservative direction.

While many tend to refer to welfare as if it’s a single government program, assistance to low-income Americans generally comes through the tax code and a hodgepodge of programs administered at the state level. While a wide range of tax credits and public programs make up the American safety net, discussions of drug testing and work requirements typically focus on a handful of programs. Read on for an overview of the programs that are typically targeted for these requirements and what recent proposals would mean for them.

Conditions and Public Assistance Programs

Both drug testing and work requirements are important components of the ongoing debate over welfare policy. Many public assistance programs have work requirements built into them due to policy changes in the 1996 welfare reform legislation. And while some efforts to impose drug testing requirements have been blocked by the courts, according to the National Conference for State Legislatures, at least 15 states have passed legislation requiring public assistance applicants or recipients to be drug screened. These conditions have different implications for people based on how they relate to specific forms of public assistance. Here’s a look at four of the most discussed programs:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–previously referred to as food stamps and now known as SNAP–already has some limitations but the debate re-emerged last year as states started reimposing work requirements after getting waivers following the recession. The 1996 welfare reform law placed stringent requirements on able-bodied adults without children. The law only permits these adults to receive benefits for just three months every three years when they are not either employed or in a job training program for at least 20 hours per week. As a result, the vast majority of people who receive SNAP benefits are either employed or have dependent children. While lawmakers at the state level have called for drug testing requirements, federal law currently does not allow it.

In addition to work requirements, several lawmakers have called for limitations to be placed on what people can use SNAP benefits to buy. Proponents of these restrictions argue that people shouldn’t be able to use publicly funded programs to buy things like sugary drinks or expensive food like lobster. But opponents argue that these decisions are best left to individuals, and limitations on what you can buy already exist–for example, SNAP recipients cannot buy alcohol or prepared foods with their benefits. Moreover, they note that such rules may further stigmatize the use of the program, which has been a crucial means of preventing food instability for a large number of Americans.

Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF)

TANF is one of the few antipoverty programs that provides direct cash assistance, rather than in-kind benefits. The TANF program is administered by the states, which are given a federal block grant each year. Because of its funding system, states have a significant amount of control over how the block grant funds are used as well as the conditions that are tied to benefits. As the name suggests, TANF benefits are typically limited to families with children and have a duration limit. All benefits are also tied to work requirements. While states can define exactly who is eligible for assistance, work requirements are part of the underlying law–states face a funding penalty when their TANF work participation rates are below what is defined by federal law.

State-level flexibility has also led many states to implement drug testing requirements for TANF recipients. However, courts have found that states do not have an unlimited authority to require drug screening. A Florida law requiring all TANF recipients to be drug tested was struck down in court because suspicion-less testing requirements amounted to an unconstitutional search. What set Florida’s law apart from similar laws in other states was its breadth–requiring all recipients rather than focusing on those suspected of drug use.

The law was also not cost effective while it was in effect–the state spent more reimbursing people for drug tests than it would have if it had given them benefits without screening. More generally, critics of efforts to attach conditions to public assistance programs tend to cite the unnecessary administrative costs that come with determining a person’s employment and drug use status.

Medicaid

Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans, has been a recent target for both work requirements and drug testing. A recent letter from the Department of Health and Human Services to the states indicated that the Trump Administration would give more flexibility to states to impose work requirements for people in the Medicaid program. Wisconsin plans to take its Medicaid program in an even further conservative direction, imposing drug screening requirements, work requirements, and time limits for those receiving benefits. Under Wisconsin’s proposal, applicants would need to fill out a questionnaire and, based on their responses, could have to undergo drug screening. If they test positive, they will be diverted into a drug treatment program and if they decline treatment they will be denied benefits altogether. As the Trump Administration signals that states will have more control over the administration of Medicaid, we can expect to see additional states propose conservative changes to Medicaid, but legal challenges may be just as likely.

Given the nature of Medicaid and the health care system in general, even some who support work requirements in principle question their use for Medicaid. Because the government requires emergency rooms to provide care to people regardless of their ability to pay for it, work requirements in Medicaid would not have the same effect as they do in programs that could simply cut off all benefits. This would also mean that more costs are shouldered by hospitals, including public hospitals funded in part through tax dollars, which limits the cost-savings related to pushing people unwilling to work off of public programs.

The video below gives a brief overview of how work requirements would work in Medicaid:

Unemployment Insurance

The Unemployment Insurance program has been around since 1935 and seeks to help the recently unemployed manage their expenses as they look for a new job. The program typically provides benefits, about half of an unemployed person’s previous salary up to a limit, for about 26 weeks in most states. The system is funded by employers on behalf of their workers through state and federal taxes. Federal law says that people eligible for Unemployment Insurance must be able to and currently be looking for work while they receive benefits, although states have the ability to define certain eligibility details.

Unemployment Insurance has been a frequent target of drug testing requirements, but a recent regulatory rollback may have inadvertently made it harder for states to place such requirements on beneficiaries. As a part of the effort to remove a number of regulations put in place under the Obama Administration, Republicans used the Congressional Review Act–a law that allows for the expedited removal of recent regulations under a new president–to scrap a Department of Labor rule outlining who could be drug tested for unemployment benefits. The regulation came out of a provision in a 2012 law that allowed states to drug test individuals before receiving unemployment benefits according to federal regulations. When the regulations were finally enacted, Republicans said they were too narrow, limiting people eligible for the tests to those in a small set of occupations. The rationale was to subject people who would need to pass a drug test for a new job to also be subject to the same tests when receiving unemployment benefits. But the law was contingent upon existing federal regulations, and now that Republicans scrapped the rules that existed, states are now unable to require drug testing absent federal regulations. Writing new rules will take some time, and removing an existing regulation makes it considerably more difficult to pass a new one seeking to accomplish the same thing. As a result, some administrative law experts believe that getting rid of the previous rule may actually set back efforts to enact drug testing requirements.

Conclusion

While there is significant disagreement on the extent to which the government should assist the poor and unemployed between the two major political parties, both Republicans and Democrats tend to agree that the government should do something to help those in need. The primary disagreement stems from how much the government is willing to pay and who is eligible for assistance. Drug testing and work requirements are seen by conservatives as a way to reduce eligibility to people who deserve it and cut costs as a result. Critics say that these requirements add more to the cost of administration than they save in withheld benefits. They also argue that placing these requirements can stigmatize the programs and discourage people who need help from seeking it.

It’s also important to realize how different requirements interact with various programs and how certain funding systems make adding conditions easier at the state level. Block grants, like the one used to fund the TANF program, give states the most flexibility to impose requirements on those receiving benefits, while entitlements tend to need a change in federal law.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drug Testing and Work Requirements: Attaching Strings to Public Assistance appeared first on Law Street.

Like most topics in law school, child support is discussed first by talking about the theoretical reasoning behind it and then with a series of very dry formulas for how it actually works in practice. In theory, child support payments from the non-custodial parent are not meant for the other parent, rather it is money for the child. The custodial parent can’t bargain it away, he or she is supposed to be acting in the child’s best interest and spending the money to support the child. It is more like a responsibility that both the parents have to the child than a debt owed to the custodial parent.

Also, like most topics in law school, the real world application of the law has very little to do with supporting the rationales behind it. The goal of the collection of benefits we call “welfare” as well as child support is to provide basic necessities for children and help lift them out of poverty. But does the current system actually accomplish the goals that it is set up to accomplish?

Magical Thinking: Calculating and Collecting Child Support

For parents who want to receive welfare benefits, there may be a perverse incentive involved with seeking the child support that is owed to their children. Receiving child support, Social Security assistance, or having a job may leave you ineligible to receive welfare assistance. A recent feature story from the Washington Post about poverty, particularly in the deep South, illustrates the challenges faced by people who are in deep poverty but are unable to get help for their basic needs. The article’s main subject, Lauren Scott, is a single mother looking for work. Although she was not receiving child support from the father, she was deemed ineligible for welfare benefits. The other women featured, who were seeking benefits with Scott, were told not to apply for benefits if they were receiving child support payments for their children. In this particular county in Georgia, the eligibility criteria did not take into account the possibility that a person receiving child support could also still need welfare benefits–it’s one or the other.

A parent who needs benefits, typically the mother, may choose to not seek child support payments from the non-custodial parent, typically the father. If the parent thinks they are eligible for welfare benefits as long as they don’t receive child support payments they may actually be better off foregoing the child support, or they believe they would be.

If the non-custodial parent is able to be located, they may be “judgment proof,” which is the legal term for a situation where there is no income or property to pay off a judgment against you, regardless of how justified the creditor may be in trying to collect. If the parent lives in a state that garnishes wages for unpaid child support but doesn’t have a job in the first place, the custodial parent won’t be able to collect, even though the child is owed that support.

Many of the non-custodial parents who owe child support are, in effect, judgment proof. As of late 2015, unpaid child support in the United States was $113 billion. Most of that debt, about 76 percent of it in 2013, is owed by individuals who earn less than $10,000 a year. In her comments to NPR, Vicki Turetsky, the head of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, refers to the current structure for the calculation and attempted collection of child support payments as “magical thinking.” Even if a non-custodial parent declares no income when the child support order is being issued, the court will calculate what they owe based on a fictitious job–often full-time minimum wage work. Incarceration is also considered “voluntary employment” in terms of calculating child support.

Take a listen to the report here which explains how child support is calculated and some of its consequences.

Perverse Incentives

Calculating child support payments based on income that does not exist and then punishing individuals for non-payment doesn’t lead to an increase in collected payments. The way that child support payments are distributed to custodial parents who receive welfare benefits may also provide a perverse incentive to those beneficiaries to not seek child support. A perverse incentive is a policy that is meant to encourage a certain positive behavior but actually provides an incentive for a negative behavior, often the opposite of the original intention. In the case of child support payments, we want children to benefit from the support they are entitled to, and when that is not enough, to supplement that with the social safety net. But by not allowing custodial parents access to both–by eliminating welfare assistance when they receive child support–we cut potential revenue streams available to that child and even encourage parents not to try to collect child support.

Many states garnish wages for unpaid child support payments. In Illinois, the state can use some of the money from the garnished wages to offset the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) payments made to custodial parents. No more than $50 of the child support payments were actually given to the child if their parent was receiving welfare. States can use garnished wages to replenish their TANF funds, which are used for the custodial parents welfare assistance. This occurs even though, in theory, that child support is owed to that individual child from that individual parent.

The federal government allows states to pass on up to $200 dollars for two children through child support payments that are received from garnished wages, allowing that money to make it to the custodial parents. But it does not give them the discretion to give the entirety of the child support payment to a parent on welfare. So even if the state wanted to encourage a parent to seek child support while they were also receiving TANF payments, they are only able to collect some of what they are owed.

Reform Attempts

States have tried other ways to incentivize parents to make child support payments and to engage in other positive behaviors by dealing with the debt they find themselves in for missed payments. As NPR explains, Maryland is implementing programs to help forgive child support debt  and clarifying the difference between child support and state-owed child support. State-owed child support is a child support payment that will go back to the state to reimburse taxpayers for the welfare payments they made to the custodial parent.

For example, Maryland is trying to forgive 10 percent of the parent’s child support debt in exchange for the completion of a month-long employment training program and then getting a job. It’s a win-win for both the state and the parent because the state has no ability to collect the outstanding debt from an unemployed person. Put simply, forgiving the 10 percent is a smart way to make collecting the outstanding 90 percent possible. It also benefits the parents who finish the program because their debt burdens are lowered and they now have a job.

Completing a Responsible Fatherhood Programs will get you another 15 percent and you can then eliminate 50 percent of your outstanding debt if you keep up to date with payments for a year. So an unemployed father in Maryland who owes $10,000 in child support debt, which he is completely unable to pay, may be able to eliminate 75 percent of that debt by participating in an employment program, a parenting class, and by showing that he can, when employed, consistently be relied upon to pay what they owe. The state did lose that $7,500 that it forgave. But going forward, the child is now receiving the support to which they are entitled. If that parent had remained unemployed, the state would have still been owed $10,000 and the debt would continue to grow. These experiments in Maryland have yielded positive results, collecting twice as much as state forgave.

Conclusion

The idea that parents should be financially responsible for their children is deeply ingrained in the way that our child support system is set up. The policy is designed to make sure parents are held accountable for their children The image of the “dead-beat dad” also indicates that parents who don’t pay child support do so because they choose not to, not because they can’t afford it. However, the data indicates that individuals who owe child support are typically men who make less than $10,000 a year. These are men who are unable to make the payments as they are initially calculated, especially if they are currently or have previously been incarcerated.

The system also forces many people to choose not to seek child support. When forced to choose between a potential welfare payment and a potential child support payment, many parents would choose the welfare payment. A system that reduces payments, but does not eliminate them completely, would provide an incentive for parents to seek support. Moreover, the children can only benefit if the parent is able to pay the support in the first place.

States that have begun to experiment with debt relief measures have found that they can increase the payments they receive. Other states have sought to stop the accrual of child support debt for individuals while they are incarcerated. Both of these measures have had positive results because they allow parents who owe child support to at least pay part of their debt

The underlying goal should be to help raise children out of poverty and provide for their basic necessities. By structuring systems that incentivize parents to seek–and enable the other parent to make–payments, states can increase the amount of support that children receive and lift them out of poverty.

Resources

NY Times: Poverty and Perverse Incentives

The Washington Post: Lost Opportunity In the Deep South Part 4

Scientific American: Magical Thinking

NPR: Some States Are Cutting Dad’s A Deal On Unpaid Child Support

NPR: From Deadbeat To Dead-broke: The Why Behind Unpaid Child Support

NPR: How U.S. Parents Racked Up $113 Billion In Child Support Debt

Chicago Tribune: Welfare Law Formula Doesn’t Support The Family

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Blood From A Stone: Child Support’s Perverse Incentives appeared first on Law Street.

In American culture, there is a deeply ingrained moral value placed on work. On having an “entrepreneurial spirit” and a strong work ethic. It is part of what makes America a great country. “Greed is good” may be the slogan we use to describe capitalism, but for those of us who get up in the morning to go to work, it isn’t greed that motivates us. It is the sense of purpose and dignity that we get from our jobs and from doing those jobs well. And, from needing to eat.

Most Americans agree that there is a standard of living that we should not allow our citizens to fall below, even if it means that we use some of our resources to help them. We don’t think it is morally right for fellow citizens to starve, especially children. Our policies on public assistance reflect that belief and try to provide the very basics of life to everyone.

These policies also reflect a tension between American generosity and the American ideal of the entrepreneurial spirit. In an effort to both prevent hunger and to protect the American work ethic we reformed assistance programs to eliminate cash benefits and to tie receiving benefits to work or the search for work. It has led many recipients of SNAP assistance, more commonly referred to as food stamps, to sell their benefits for cash rather than using them for food. This is a crime and may carry fines, jail time, and a loss of benefits. One that we spend a lot of time and effort trying to eradicate. But should we? Or should we be turning a blind eye to, or maybe even encouraging, the sale of food stamps for cash?

Say It With Cash

Take your net income per month and divide it by 30. For most of us, the amount is probably more than $2. Yet many Americans are living on $2 a day or less.

In the book “$2 A Day: Living on Almost Nothing In America,” authors Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer go into a detailed explanation of the history of welfare reform in recent decades and a series of interviews with Americans who live on $2 a day or less. In October 2015, PBS interviewed Edin who spoke about some of the book’s major themes:

The book’s central theme is that while food is the most important necessity for people in poverty, they also have other needs that can only be met with cash. Goods like electricity, clothing, and phones might be considered luxury items but are vital tools in looking for work. Because they have no other source of income they end up selling things to get cash–like plasma, sex, and food stamps. The cash that they get is able to be used for necessities that food stamps can’t pay for.

The beauty of cash is that it allows you to purchase whatever you need with it. If at that particular time your most pressing need is clothing, cash allows you to sacrifice your need for food in favor of clothing. It gives the person the choice of how to best allocate their resources. The downfall of course, from the point of view of the taxpayer, is that a recipient of cash may decide that drugs or alcohol, and not food, is their most pressing need and use the cash for that. It is partly this fear of misuse that encouraged the reformation of welfare from cash benefits to benefits like SNAP, where recipients are locked into only buying food with their EBT cards. It also drives the movements emerging in many states to prevent these benefits from being used for certain luxury food items or junk food items.

Contract Of Adhesion

For many, the main concern with the sale of food stamps is not that people are selling them but how much they are getting. Selling your food stamps is a terrible deal. The going rate for $100 worth of food stamps is between $50-60 dollars depending on what part of the country you are in. By selling your food stamps, you’re losing about half of your purchasing power. In some places, if the store owner is particularly friendly, it can be a little better, but generally, sellers take a loss.

The relationship between food stamp buyer and seller is an unorthodox example of the legal concept of a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is a legal phrase for “raw deal.” Essentially, when the bargaining power of the parties is very unbalanced, so much so that the weaker party really can’t meaningfully negotiate the terms of the contract, courts may take a look and invalidate the contract or provisions of the contract that are “unconscionable.” Typically, contracts of adhesion are things like insurance contracts, mortgages, and credit cards. The little guy versus the big guy. These contracts are often “boilerplate” meaning that they are pre-written and the same for everyone. The little guys here aren’t special and don’t really have a way to haggle with the big guy to get a better deal. So courts will give those contracts a closer reading in a light that favors the little guy.

Selling your food stamps is a lot like that. For one thing, if you need the cash you NEED the cash. Just like someone who is buying a house really does need a place to live and maybe can’t negotiate with the lender. Only perhaps more so because a home buyer doesn’t necessarily need that specific house. The cash buyer may not also have the luxury of shopping around for the best rate. Just as a home buyer may not have enough good options for a line of credit, the cash buyer may not have enough potential buyers they can go to–there may only be a few people willing to buy food stamps in a given area.

The illegal nature of the sale has the effect of making the contract even more unfair for the seller because the buyer is charging a fee to assume that risk. The greater the risk of a fine or jail time to the buyer, the more the money cost. So instead of getting $60 for your $100 worth of food stamps you might get $50. These are the same issues that prevent the seller from negotiating for a better price. Someone might be perfectly willing to give them $85 in cash for $100 in food stamps. But sellers may be reluctant to shop around because doing so increases the likelihood that they could be caught. Increasing sting operations, which are designed to stop the sale of food stamps, may only drive the price down and may not have diminished sales meaningfully.

This video from Democracy NOW! provides another account of how SNAP recipients are selling their food stamp benefits.

In 2012, the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General, which is in charge of prosecuting SNAP fraud, devoted half of its resources to combating SNAP fraud and abuse. This includes both fraud in collecting benefits when you shouldn’t as well as “trafficking,” the official term for selling food stamps. That year it investigated 15,000 stores and did 4,500 sting operations. Out of the 15,000 stores, 2,100 of were either shut down or sanctioned, meaning that 14 percent of the stores were punished. The 4,500 undercover investigations resulted in 342 convictions, about 0.75 percent.

The problem with the selling of food stamps is that we aren’t sure what the sellers will be buying with their cash. Most of us are sympathetic when we hear about a woman who sells her food stamps to buy diapers, which you can’t buy with food stamps. Even if that activity is illegal, many of us do not find it to be quite so immoral. But because the sale of food stamps is a contract of adhesion that mother, and many like her, is able to buy a lot fewer diapers than she normally would be able to after selling her food stamps. And we fear that she won’t be using it to buy diapers at all but to buy alcohol or drugs.

This is a legitimate fear. Changing the program to one that is purely cash assistance would allow recipients to use the money on anything they want to. That is both the benefit and the drawback of that change. They may choose to buy diapers or electricity, or they may buy vodka. There would be no way to effectively control their spending if the benefit was pure cash.

The Parable of The Talents

There was one story in “$2 A Day” of a SNAP recipient spending her benefits on junk food. Rather than buying healthy foods, she chose to spend it partly on transportation (through an illegal conversion from food stamps to cash) and partly on cups and Kool-Aid. She was able to make popsicles and then sell them for a dollar each–increasing her income with that initial investment. Rather than taking the 50 percent value of her food stamps in cash and buying her other necessities, she took that cash and turned it into more cash.

She’s a criminal and an entrepreneur. The cash from the food stamps was a greater benefit to her than the food stamps themselves. So how do we craft a policy that will protect the taxpayer interest in keeping that money from being spent in inappropriate ways while still promoting the core American value of the entrepreneurial spirit?

Proposed Reforms

Reformers from all points on the political spectrum have advocated amending welfare benefits such as SNAP and TANF (Temporary Aid To Needy Families) in an attempt to help those programs combat poverty in a more meaningful way. Many of these reforms focus on trying to change the incentives for beneficiaries by encouraging behaviors that are thought to alleviate poverty and provide social benefits, particularly marriage, in addition to encouraging work. Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush proposed eliminating the various programs that we call “welfare” (TANF, SNAP, etc.) and instead provide states with block grants so that they can choose how to provide benefits. Currently, states have a lot of leeway in how they structure their benefits–which leads to a lot of differences in the support people can receive in various states–but they are all within the framework of meeting federal government criteria to get funding. That usually means work requirements. Eliminating the need to satisfy federal requirements would allow states to experiment further.

One positive aspect of that approach is to use federalism to our advantage and allow states to each try a slightly different method of delivering benefits to low-income individuals. But it does not change the need that many poor individuals have for cash benefits who qualify for SNAP but not TANF. States are unlikely to adopt less stringent work requirements for aid, in fact, the trend has been in the opposite direction. In Maine work requirements were tied to food stamp benefits in 2015, which resulted in a sharp reduction in the number of people receiving SNAP benefits.

Other Possible Solutions 

One solution might be to develop a hybrid system for benefits. Like most of the changes proposed it would require more of an investment in the program. But we could set up a system where the SNAP benefits are primarily for food, with a small portion of the benefits made available in cash as well. That cash might be used for bad purposes, but if only a portion of the benefits was available in cash then not all of the benefits would be “wasted.” Some would still need to be used for food though they could still be sold on the black market. The initial investment would be in determining the correct ratio of cash to food stamps but it wouldn’t require as much monitoring as other options.

There is a government program already in existence, TANF, which does provide cash assistance to families that qualify. This program was designed as a replacement to Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) and sought to tie cash assistance to work requirements. To get funding for the program from the federal government, states must maintain certain percentages of working recipients. The goal of tying work requirements to the receipt of assistance is to encourage people to seek work and to make sure that families do not develop a cyclical dependence on TANF. There are also time limits placed on the benefits for that same reason.

The problem is that for many people, particularly after the Great Recession, they are unable to find employment that can satisfy these work requirements. This has cut the amount of people receiving cash assistance drastically since 1996. In 1996, 68 out of 100 families in poverty received TANF. In 2013, only 26 out of 100 families in poverty received it. Cutting the number of people who are eligible makes it so fewer people receive benefits, but that does not actually reduce the number of people in need. Even if TANF was an effective program to assist the working poor it does nothing for families who have fallen out of the mainstream economy almost completely.

Another option is to increase the number of vendors of legitimate products that we want people to purchase who accept food stamps. Instead of making food stamps into cash just make them more like cash. Encourage, or require, utility companies and clothing stores to accept EBT cards as payment. That way recipients can use an EBT card to pay for electricity or clothing without having to take the loss of purchasing power that accompanies turning it into cash on the black market.

There are some programs that attempt to deal with the needs for a phone and for utility subsidies for low-income Americans. For example LIHEAP (Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program) provides federal funding to states to assist families with their utility costs. However, each state can set its own eligibility standards, which is true of the other programs as well. As a result, the rate of people receiving benefits ranges widely across states. In states where you need to receive TANF in order to qualify for LIHEAP, the non-working are once again left out.

A final option would require more manpower to distribute aid but might do the most to both encourage personal responsibility on the part of the benefits recipients as well as eliminate potential fraud: working with beneficiaries to help figure out what their greatest needs are and then tailoring their benefits accordingly. The poor are not a monolithic group. Those in rural areas may be able to supplement their diet with home-grown food and so may need less in food stamps but more in their transportation budget. Someone who is poor in an urban area might be able to travel on foot while they hunt for work but because they live at a shelter they need a cell phone to be able to contact potential employers. Matching the benefits more closely to the individual needs satisfies our core value of encouraging personal responsibility while also protecting our interest in only spending our tax dollars on items we approve of.

Conclusion

SNAP recipients selling their benefits for cash is a growing phenomenon that is unlikely to go away even with more vigorous efforts to combat it. The types of needs that the poor have here in America almost require the use of cash rather than food stamps alone. Even so, Americans struggle with how to balance our values: concern for the poor and the promotion of the entrepreneurial spirit.

Resources

Goodreads: $2.00 A Day: Living On Almost Nothing In America

Fox News: State Food Stamp Purchases

The New York Times: Food Stamp Fraud, Rare But Troubling

Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute: Contract of Adhesion

CBS: Food Stamp Recipients Selling Benefits For Cash

United States Department of Agriculture: Food and Nutrition Service: Fraud

The Weekly Standard: Food Stamp Trafficking Up 30 percent From 2008-2011

The American Prospect: Stop Worrying About Food Stamp “Fraud”

Government Accountability Institute, Profits From Poverty: How Food Stamps Benefit Corporations

SNAP to Health: The History of SNAP

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF

Journalist’s Resource: Inequalities In U.S. “Safety Net” Programs For The Poor

CNN Politics: Jeb Bush Releases Welfare Reform Proposals

International Business Times: Which US States Have The Most Welfare Program Benefits?

The National Review: Getting Welfare Right

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Entrepreneurial Spirit?: Behind the Sale of Food Stamps appeared first on Law Street.

The government has been shuttered for three days now, and things are already starting to look bleak.

I’ve written about how the GOP’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is really about a racist, sexist, elitist desire to keep privilege (and life’s basic necessities) concentrated among rich, white, straight men. And that’s what’ll happen if the Affordable Care Act gets defunded.

But even though Obamacare hasn’t been axed, those of us who are outside of privilege are already starting to feel the heat. While Congress engages in the world’s most irritating staring contest, government programs that disproportionately serve women and people of color are already starting to run dry.

Thanks, Hyperbole and a Half!

One of the first things to circle the drain are WIC payments. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has been deemed a non-essential government service. That means, while the government is shut down, WIC’s doors will be closed. More than half of the country’s babies rely on WIC to receive proper nutrition, and their mothers are the ones who will be left with crying, hungry, and sick children.

I’m sorry, but how can feeding babies possibly be considered non-essential? That’s really just awful. Especially considering that Republicans added a “conscience clause” to their ridiculous, let’s-shut-down-the-government ransom bill that would cut women off from accessing contraceptive and other preventive health services.

So basically, the GOP is pushing legislation that would simultaneously result in more babies, while denying food to those who already exist. And who has to figure out how to survive in all this mess? Women. More specifically, poor women of color. I’m sure they really appreciate that, Ted Cruz.

 And it doesn’t stop there. Head Start programs, which provide early education to low-income children, might have to stop serving their students, depending on how long this government shutdown lasts. A handful of Head Start programs will get hit immediately, with the rest following suit as this game of Congressional chicken drags on. Again, we’re seeing the GOP push legislation that creates more kids, while denying education to the ones who are already here. And who has to pay the price? All the mothers who will skip work, and potentially miss out on wages, to care for their children who have been turned away from shuttered Head Starts.

And those wages are really important, especially if this shutdown lasts any substantial amount of time. As temperatures drop, heating bills will rise, and the Low Income Home Energy program — which disproportionately serves women — won’t be able to provide assistance. Neither will the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which is, once again, overwhelmingly used by women. Single mothers will have to decide between paying rent, feeding their children, or heating their homes. How can we allow that to happen?

All of this is happening because our elected Congress-people can’t — or won’t — do their jobs. This is professional incompetency at its finest, and it’s entirely unacceptable. But it also reveals a lot about our national state of affairs.

While the GOP may have started this ridiculousness with the goal of blocking legislation that would benefit underprivileged people, it’s clear that systematic inequality is already in place. Anyone who argues that racism and sexism are things of the past only needs to look at what’s happening right now to see that they’re wrong.

If racism and sexism were over, women and people of color wouldn’t be hit the hardest when our lawmakers fail to do their jobs. They wouldn’t be the ones who have to choose between feeding their children and heating their homes. And most importantly, those struggles would be making top headlines in news outlets across the country.

But that’s not the case. Women and people of color are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to this government shutdown, and they’re barely making any headlines about it. It’s no coincidence that veterans — who are mostly white and male — failing to receive government benefits has caused national outrage, while the single mothers who depend on WIC remain largely in the shadows.

As Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep women, people of color, queer people, and the poor disenfranchised, they wind up highlighting all of the ways that these communities are oppressed in the first place.

So thanks, guys. You’re making my job a little bit easier.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [cool revolution via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SHOCKING: Women Are Disproportionately Shut Out by the Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.