Here is a question: Do you think it is proper for able bodied people who want to receive food stamps to be required to either be working, looking for work or in a job training program? To be clear, people with disabilities, seniors, and those with very young children do not fall under this requirement; it is limited to adults who are able to work and who have no excuse for not doing so.
This requirement for receiving food stamps was in the original bill that passed back in the 1960s. It remains in the law today. It simply says that America will help those who at least try to help themselves. On the other hand, if a person chooses not to work and not to try, the country will not help folks live in that lifestyle.
Polling shows that overwhelming majorities of American agree that this limitation is fair and proper. So why is this the question to answer now? It is because there is currently in Washington another of those endless battles in Congress over spending. Republicans have "cut" 5% from the Food Stamp programs in a bill that passed the House, and the Democrats are screaming the Republicans want to bring hunger back across the country. What actually happened, however, is that the Republicans have insisted that the requirement for able bodied people to work, look for work or be in job training has to be enforced. President Obama, you see, waived that requirement when he got into office. Obama allowed states to change the requirements for getting food stamps. If a state wanted (and many did this), it could qualify any applicant for food stamps so long as that person also qualified for some other form of federal assistance. Because there is so much cash given away by Washington on so many different programs, there were many folks who got food stamps who would never have met the actual legal requirements for assistance under that program. The Republican bill actually just insists that the law be enforced as it is written.
This is the sort of battle that ought not to exist. There is no reason why the Democrats should want to give cash to those who are not legally qualified to receive it. There is no reason why the Democrats should want to equate enforcing the law (which they passed) with favoring hunger. Wait, there is one reason: politics. Right now, America is still running enormous government deficits. The reduction of those deficits will go a long way towards restoring America's economy. Getting rid of illegal payments to those who do not qualify for food stamps ought to be a no brainer, not a cause for pitched battle.
This requirement for receiving food stamps was in the original bill that passed back in the 1960s. It remains in the law today. It simply says that America will help those who at least try to help themselves. On the other hand, if a person chooses not to work and not to try, the country will not help folks live in that lifestyle.
Polling shows that overwhelming majorities of American agree that this limitation is fair and proper. So why is this the question to answer now? It is because there is currently in Washington another of those endless battles in Congress over spending. Republicans have "cut" 5% from the Food Stamp programs in a bill that passed the House, and the Democrats are screaming the Republicans want to bring hunger back across the country. What actually happened, however, is that the Republicans have insisted that the requirement for able bodied people to work, look for work or be in job training has to be enforced. President Obama, you see, waived that requirement when he got into office. Obama allowed states to change the requirements for getting food stamps. If a state wanted (and many did this), it could qualify any applicant for food stamps so long as that person also qualified for some other form of federal assistance. Because there is so much cash given away by Washington on so many different programs, there were many folks who got food stamps who would never have met the actual legal requirements for assistance under that program. The Republican bill actually just insists that the law be enforced as it is written.
This is the sort of battle that ought not to exist. There is no reason why the Democrats should want to give cash to those who are not legally qualified to receive it. There is no reason why the Democrats should want to equate enforcing the law (which they passed) with favoring hunger. Wait, there is one reason: politics. Right now, America is still running enormous government deficits. The reduction of those deficits will go a long way towards restoring America's economy. Getting rid of illegal payments to those who do not qualify for food stamps ought to be a no brainer, not a cause for pitched battle.
No comments:
Post a Comment