"food stamps" news and stories

Food stamp users, prepare for some belt-tightening. Harkening back to Clinton-era welfare economics of 1996, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has proposed a $6.2 trillion cut to annual federal deficits for the next decade. The proposal, which passed the House earlier this month and resumes legislation today as Senators return from Easter-Passover break, would have a major impact on nutritional assistance programs.

The Ryan budget plan looks to cut the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by 20 percent between 2012 to 2021 by capping the open-ended system with a block-grant -- either by capping eligibility or benefits, or both. This means benefits would not fluctuate with economic need. States would instead be allotted a max.

Anyone catch wind of the Republicans' proposed budget cuts for 2012? Tucked in the Welfare Reform Restoration Act (H.R.1135) is a wonky provision. Courtesy of a whistleblower on ThinkProgress, Salon.com reports that a new provision would "deny food stamps to any family in which a member of that family is on strike." Huh?

If you're following the news out of Wisconsin, you know that collective bargaining isn't exactly getting a lot of love from the Right these days. And food stamp funding is already on the chopping block. But tying the two issues together seems a bit of a stretch. This week, Republicans proposed legislation that would make it tougher to apply for food stamps (the biggest change is increasing the minimum hours applicants need to be working, from 80 hours each month to 120, reports The Hill.) But punishing families that have a member on strike? Seems draconian. Here's the amendment, which you find right here in Sec.202 of the bill online at OpenCongress.org:

(3) STRIKING WORKERS INELIGIBLE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2)), because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9)):

If you've got an opinion one way or another, you can write to your representative through OpenCongress.org.

Should recipients of food stamps be required to pass a drug test in order to receive their benefits?

Some Republican legislators in New Hampshire think so, and they've proposed a new law that would subject food-stamp recipients to random drug tests. A number of other states, such as Oregon, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska, are considering similar laws.

No doubt, when taken at face value, these laws sound eminently reasonable. After all, thousands of U.S. workers are required to pass drug tests in order to apply for or keep their jobs.

But as a number of civil liberties and public health organizations point out, such testing relies on unproven stereotypes about people who receive public assistance and the testing can cost taxpayers more money than it saves.

If New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, nearly 2 million food-stamp recipients in the five boroughs will be prohibited from using their benefits to buy soda or similar sugary soft drinks, according to The New York Times.

The move marks the latest attempt by the mayor to curb rates of obesity and diabetes in the city, which, as in the rest of the country, are on the rise. It's also part of Bloomberg's broader and much publicized public health campaign, which has included an expanded ban on public smoking, an effort to reduce sodium content in restaurant food, and an unsuccessful attempt to impose a state tax on sugary drinks. And like many of those proposals, this one has elicited strong opinions, both pro and con.

A joint op-ed piece by both the city and state heath commissioners, also published in the Times, lays out a number of compelling arguments to support the mayor's proposal, one of these being that recipients are already barred from using their stamps to buy other demonstrably unhealthy items, such as cigarettes, liquor, and prepared foods.

There are currently two major concerns surrounding the country's food stamp program: does financial incentive (discounts) change people's eating habits? In other words, is obesity and other health deficiencies more common in low-income populations simply because healthier food costs more? The second is: how should the government help? A new incentive pilot program announced yesterday offers discounts for fresh produce, and it may be the government's biggest step towards clarity.

As The Boston Globe reports, The Agriculture Department awarded $20 million to Massachusetts and Abt Associates, Inc (a research firm in Cambridge) as part of its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to temporarily grant thousands of Hampden County food stamp recipients with a 30-cent discount on every dollar spent on fresh produce. Out of the 50,000 households with food stamps in the county, these select families with then be tracked for 15 months to see how their health compares to food stamp recipients paying full price for produce. The program is estimated to start next fall.