Freeloading on the Taxpayer's Dime

15 December 2003 | Andy Obermann

[AndyObermann]

Freeloading on the Taxpayer’s Dime By: Andy Obermann 14 December 2003

The other day I was at the grocery store doing some shopping. I patiently waited in line to purchase a few miscellaneous items. In front of me, a woman, no older than forty, was buying two sodas, two packs of gum, and a personal size bag of potato chips—trivial purchases, a snack perhaps. She proceeded to pull out what appeared to be a credit or debit card to pay for the goods. An unnecessary step for such a menial purchase, I thought. Much to my surprise, however, she was paying for these goods with her Food Stamp benefit card. It struck me as odd, very odd, but nothing was said of it and she moved on.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson passed the first national Food Stamp Act. In it, he outlined a plan to provide adequate nourishment for all American citizens as part of his “Great Society”. In 1976, President Jimmy Carter approved a revision of the law eliminating purchase requirements and simplifying eligibility standards. Thanks to these reductions the present day Food Stamp Program touted a massive 6.5 million recipients and a payout of more than half a billion dollars, approximately $566,569,725, to be exact.

Now, I don’t know or really want to understand what Carter was thinking, but I’d be willing to bet that soda and gum weren’t the types of food good ole’ LBJ had in mind. Aside from the fact that the Constitution affords government no power to enact such a program, one would think that at the very least, the way these monies are spent would be monitored. It’s likely that a significant portion of that half a billion could be used elsewhere if the reckless spending habits of recipients were scrutinized a bit more closely.

Normally, I’m against government intrusion in the lives of everyday people, but for this I’ll definitely make an exception. Why isn’t there some sort of provision in Welfare programs as to how these precious government funds can be spent? Is it really that intrusive to say, “Ok, since you’re getting taxpayer money from the government, we’re going to determine what you’re allowed to buy with it and monitor those purchases?”

An honest proposal would be to restrict Food Stamp purchases to the four basic food groups; grains, meats/poultry, dairy, fruits/vegetables. If this were violated, privileges would be revoked and stores in breech would be reprimanded. What’s wrong with that? Superfluous purchases such as chips and soda don’t provide adequate nourishment anyway, so why not?

A lot of you aren’t going to like this, but I’ll go one further, once a citizen has been on the program for an extended period of time, they should start losing some of the privileges that taxpayers receive. I don’t think that those who are on these programs indefinitely should be allowed to partake in voting. Maybe this would provide a little motivation to stop mooching off the hard-earned profits of others. Think about it, why should they have any say over how tax dollars are spent, when they foot none of the bill? Why should they be able to choose the leaders who shape America’s economic policies, when their earnings will not be used to fund these policies?

Now before all of you start berating me for being insensitive, let me qualify this theory. I’m not talking about citizens receiving disability and unemployment or families that legitimately go on these programs out of need. I’m referring to the chronic abusers—those who have been on these programs for years and years that have not attempted, and do not desire to get off. I’m talking about those who give our social Welfare programs a black eye: the freeloaders.

Look, if a family is in need, if the primary bread-winner has lost his or her job, or something terribly unexpected occurs, these programs can be of great assistance. There is no shame in needing or receiving help when one falls on tough times. That is why these programs were created; they are warranted for these urgent situations. They aren’t, however, meant as a long-term solution.

The government needs to take a serious look at the abuses these sorts of programs incur, and soon. If politicians don’t, perhaps the American taxpayer should look for leaders who will.

[vannrox]

Are you advocating that our Federal Government dictate the dietary selections of the population?

Or do you just want it to be dictatd by the State Govenment?

Food Stamp guidelines are much as you would think. The four basic food groups are certainly covered in depth. While there are abuses of the system, it is not the governments role to dictate to anyone what they can and cannot consume.

Personally, I have seen good times and hard times. There have been times when I have had to get some help from the government. I know that there have been onlookers who would say..."look at that fine strapping young man....he is just taking advantage of the system". But nothing could be further from the truth.

The bottom line is this...

Don't judge a person by the shoes he wears....
Walk a mile in his shoes and then think about his situation..

[Jack Black]

Just end it. It's unconstitutional. It's absurd. It's full of fraud.

[babyface00]

it is not the governments role to dictate to anyone what they can and cannot consume.

Is that what the author is argueing? Or is it that the government can and should dictate what the benefit recipient can purchase? Or, more specifically, what they can purchase with taxpayer dollars.

[Phantom Lord]

Neal Boortz refers to these Electronic Benefit Cards as "Push Button Plunder." I think he has it nailed.

[randog]

I'm under the impression that there are limits to what can be bought with food stamps. Hard liquor comes to mind as one of the no-no's, but there must be others.

[Paradox]

I don’t think that those who are on these programs indefinitely should be allowed to partake in voting.

I'll go one better, I think that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[2banana]

I used to work as a check out clerk.

The items "purchased" with food stamps amazed me.

High priced items like steak, filet mignon and salmon. Most bought very expensive processed frozen dinners. Many times I had arguments that cigarettes and beer could not be bought with the tax payer food stamps.

Very few bought the basics (milk, sugar, flour) to make their own food cheaply.

I know how to eat cheap, I did it in college for $100/month.

[babyface00]

I think that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Property ownership wouldn't be a bad prerequisite either.

[ampat]

NO. I don't want the govt dictating what people eat. If my money is being taken from me in the name of feeding poor people, then I want the say as to what poor people eat. No gum, no soda.

[Phantom Lord]

Property ownership wouldn't be a bad prerequisite either.

That would be a horrible idea. And if it did ever come to be, what would constitute property ownership? If you have a mortgage on your home, the bank owns it technically. Would only those who own their home free and clear be allowed to vote?

In NC and some other states you have to pay property tax on automobiles. If I am paying property taxes on my car, then I clearly own property. But what if there is a loan on it?

And why should a person who prefers to rent an apartment be denied the ability to vote?

What about a situation my wife and I were in, and many many Americans find themselves in. Renting an apartment after the sale of a home while the construction on the new home is being finished? The day before closing on the sale I could vote, but today I can't?

[Stephen Ritter]

Andy,

I used to think exactly like you. If there was an internet at that time, I would have posted like you. But no more ...

You see, both my wife and I, after decades of hard work and paying taxes (I was in mangement, and she was a nurse), came down with a legal disability in the same year. I developed a seizure disorder in which I would have 50-70 seizures per day. My wife is entitled to her privacy, in this forum.

And so, with no income between us, we took every bit of assistance we could get, including food stamps. Friends, family, and church helped, but that only goes so far. The government programs allowed us to live independently.

Now, we're working to get back our health and our lives, and there's hope over the horizon (probably early next year).

The whole time I've been "on the dole", I maintained my conservative values and principles. I agree that there's questions about the "constitutionality" of entitlement programs. I agree that there's rampant abuse and corruption in the system. I don't agree that it's absurd. And if it was "just ended", my wife and I BOTH would likely have died.

Instead of dying, however, we stand a good chance of becoming taxpayers again, in the very near future. It was these programs that saved us, and it's our determination to get ahead in life that will get us off of the programs.

You should know that the disenfranchisement of me WOULD be un-Constitutional. And NO ONE the H*** is going to tell me what to eat.

How's your health, Andy?

[Phantom Lord]

I don't find these programs to be unconstitutional, but I would prefer that the federal government not be involved in it at all and the states themselves determine the benefit levels that will be provided.

I have no problem with some people getting some assistance. But I would firmly support the eligible food stuffs being very restricted in scope.

[Paradox]

Property ownership wouldn't be a bad prerequisite either.

Ooooh, you evil capitalist scum! You sound like, well, like, uh, the Founding Fathers...

[babyface00]

You have good points. But the tax assessors don't seem to have a problem with determining who owns property.

IMHO, anyone not paying property taxes shouldn't have a say in spending the money, or setting the rates.

[expatpat]

1. You do own a mortgaged house. The bank just has a lien on it, but you have title.

2. The property-owner requirement would not be new -- it was used in the past, here and in England.

[babyface00]

Ooooh, you evil capitalist scum! You sound like, well, like, uh, the Founding Fathers

I seem to get accused of that a lot lately...

[babyface00]

I sympathize with your situation, but I think its clouded your judgement, IMHO.

Do you really think that those on government assistance should be indulging in luxurious foodstuffs? Do you also think those who are on heating assistance, for example, should leave their windows open since they are no longer paying for it?

Government benefits are charity. Forced charity, but charity nonetheless. If you're on charity, you ought to have the courtesy to spend that money frugally, even moreso than if it was your own.

If it becomes obvious (as it has been for years) that many are spending their benefits in ways that are considered wasteful, or for items that were not indended, than the government certainly should be placing restrictions on it. After all, as a recipient, its not your money, its everyone else's.

[Atlas Sneezed]

You should know that the disenfranchisement of me WOULD be un-Constitutional. And NO ONE the H*** is going to tell me what to eat.

---

The as long as people who feel like don't stick their hands into my pockets to fund their freedom of food, there should be no trouble with disenfranchisement or food fights.