Posted on 05/20/2015 4:17:11 PM PDT by upchuck
Wisconsin’s State Assembly approved legislation last week that puts in place new rules about what recipients of food stamps may purchase with the benefits.
Assembly Bill 177 would limit the types of food that could be purchased with Wisconsin’s food stamp program, FoodShare.
In addition to banning the purchase of foods such as lobster with the publicly-funded program, the legislation would also require that just over two-thirds of the benefits be used to purchase healthy foods:
“Under this bill, DHS [Department of Health Services] must require that not less than 67 percent of the SNAP benefits used by a recipient in a month be used to purchase any of the following foods: foods that are on the list of foods authorized for the federal special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC foods); beef; pork; chicken; fish; fresh produce; and fresh, frozen, and canned white potatoes. In addition, DHS must prohibit using SNAP benefits for the purchase of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish.”
The bill was passed in a 60-35 vote.
Supporters say the measure is fiscally responsible and encourages healthy eating, while opponents say that limiting the types of food that can be purchased places additional hardship on those receiving aid.
“A lot of people, an awful lot of people who are on FoodShare are also on BadgerCare, so there is a direct financial benefit not just to the individual, which of course is obvious to have better health, but also to state taxpayers and society as a whole,” Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, told the Associated Press.
“It’s a restriction that’s designed just to make the lives of those that are already struggling that much harder,” Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, told The Capital Times. “And instead, we should be focusing not on the foods people buy but on putting people to work by creating jobs that get people off of FoodShare.”
Rachel Sheffield, a policy analyst for The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, said that the “food stamps program is in serious need of reform.”
“Most importantly food stamps should include a work requirement that requires able-bodied adults to work, prepare for work or look for work in exchange for receiving assistance,” said Sheffield.
The bill will go on to the state Senate for approval. The AP reports that the Wisconsin Senate declined to take up a similar bill last year.
BULL!! I purchased liquor in a store in Ohio, and the register was configured to accommodate such cards. I questioned the clerk, and he through his hands up.
********************
Cash registers are standardized...but more than likely the food stamp option was there to pay for your limes , diet coke and non-alcoholic margarita mix...
Michigan did require food stamp receivers to work, under Engler and lots of folks decided that they didn’t need them any more. Then along comes dear “Aunt Jenny Grandmole” and removed the work requirement and almost anyone can get them now.
I rest my case. Your post was telling me what to do - in other words, trying to control me. Are you a closet lib?
Not silly at all if you have followed some of the earlier discussions about this topic. It’s a simple conclusion, that if we are to control how are tax dollars are spent - and what people can buy with food stamps - then we should have a say so in other areas that government wastes our money. You are the one who is silly and I didn’t back off the topic at all. I have no say so in what WI or any other state does as far as legislation. In fact, it seems, none of us do any more. Our representatives don’t listen to us.
Option B: Chicken, Collard Greens, Corn on the cob, watermellon.
Pick one and like it... or...
Option C: Get a job.
If the foods were limited to hard to prepare items it would cause Baltimore and Ferguson style riots.
$200 worth of food stamps still cost the same whether they are used to purchase chips & dip or beans & cans of peas.
It seems to me we should be encouraging more of these people to be independent and think for themselves. The natural consequences of spending your grocery money foolishly is going hungry. The natural consequences of not having a job used to be going hungry and having no place to live. My how things have changed.
Protecting people who are on the public dole from the natural consequences of their bad choices isn’t helping anyone. What benefit or cost saving is there to the taxpayers would there be to control what these people are buying?
You have to pay someone to come up with an increasingly long list of taboo foods. Who decides what is on this list? No soda pop? Okay how about fruit juices which can contain just as much sugar? What about a jar of pickles? Too much sodium? A dozen eggs and a pound of butter. Too much fat? Are they allowed to buy any sugar? If so can they buy flour, eggs and butter too and make their own cookies and cakes? This gets ridiculous.
Unless we want the pleasure of just telling these people they can’t eat certain foods because we want to punish them for being on welfare and we don’t think they should be able to eat those things I see no relief to the taxpayer in this.
Fixing fraud and abuse is one thing. This is something else entirely.
Fast food, food to go, etc. are prohibited purchases on food stamps.
Twit - making it too easy on them only fosters the lack of responsibility in them
What ever happened to the old adages - like "Beggars can't be choosers"????
I would hazard that in today's society, that is deemed a racist comment....
Exactly.
If you had bothered to read the entire thread instead of just my post, you might have noticed that my question was rhetorical, and was aimed at someone who had compared medicare and food stamps.
A better way to save taxpayer money in the food stamp program is fighting fraud and abuse. Tighten up the program in a way which makes fraud more difficult. Purchases should be used in grocery stores only. No fast food restaurants, fast food places, stop & go marts, etc.
I would be a fool to deny there is a segment in our society who have learned how to game the system and as a result live off of our dimes. Punish the individuals, not the entire class.
There should be stiff penalties for anyone applying for and receiving benefits under false pretenses. Bartering food stamps and using someone else’s card should be regarded as a serious crime, prosecuted with no plea deals.
Those on the retail side involved in fraud should be prosecuted as harshly as the recipient.
I reject the notion parents recieving SNAP benefits lose something we all hold precious-making decisions regarding what is best for our families. Or that somehow because they are on food stamps they have a need to be told what is good and what is bad.
For those who believe they have a right to dictate what someone can buy because it is their money, why stop with what items can be purchased? Why not insist store brands must be purchased instead of brand names? Maybe you should insist a certain percentage of items bought must be sale items. How about where they shop? Instead of Publix (most expensive in my area ) make them shop at Aldie’s. A slippery slope if there ever was one.
Wisconsin Legislature’s proposed changed to Food Stamp program explained.
FReep mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
“to watch them crawl around in tanks - grosses me out.”
I told my Turkish BIL that they looked like big underwater bugs. Sea roaches. He hasn’t eaten one since! More for me!
” don’t tell me to buy fresh produce when I can get canned vegetables that are cheaper, that often taste better, and they have a much better shelf life.”
I agree in general, but prefer frozen. Frozen veggies are picked at their peak of sun-ripened goodness. Fresh veggies are picked before they’re ripe, and ripen in warehouses and on trucks. I just don;t think they’re as good as frozen.
I agree 100% with you. I, too, prefer frozen veggies.
I agree with most of your post, but we can choose our battles, and this should be one. NEVER GIVE UP!! However, to say that one who debates you is a liberal, is quite off the mark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.