It’s about punishing the poor. The powers that be in WI aren’t fans of the nanny state, but they are fans of blaming the poor for being poor.
Having very much followed the rhetoric from the politicians who pushed these and similar restrictions (and from private conversations with MI politicians seeking to enact similar restrictions), I have to disagree with you, shellz.
What sorts of changes would help the system? Keeping some restrictions on the items noted above is a good thing…but how else can we ensure that the poor are not being punished. Either intentionally, as I think some feel, or unintentionally as a result of restrictions like those in WI? This is an important issue in the future of our country and yet I hear very little about it. Perhaps it’s where I live, but I sure would like to hear more about ensuring that our nations children don’t go hungry. And certainly that they are not made to feel “less than” if they are receiving help.
I doubt that anyone’s intention is to punish the poor, though that may be the end result. I think people justify these things as trying to make public benefits less attractive to people to apply for. If you make it very restrictive and difficult to use, few people will use them. If you make it very easy and generous, too many people will take advantage of them. I personally am in favor of making public benefits in many areas far more generous—yet ensuring that only people who truly need them, get them. But these kind of actions seem pretty stupid.
People, the Wisconsin restrictions are the existing WIC restrictions. If you read the actual WIC restrictions, you will see that they are aimed at purchasing the most nutritionally-dense foods at a low price: that is the rationale you saying yes to yams and no to white rice and vegetables with sauces that provide no nutritional benefit, and so on. That is why organic food isn’t on the list: it’s more expensive. (The sharp cheddar and brown egg thing mystifies me, I have to say.) It crosses the line into being actively punitive when these rules are applied to ALL food assistance. And being punitive is exactly what the Wisconsin legislature intends.
But after discussing this at length elsewhere, I’ve come to the conclusion that we should just provide income support and let people decide how to spend it themselves. People aren’t stupid and irresponsible because they are poor. Poor people know how to feed their children decently, and will do so if they have the means.
The cost of monitoring all of this stuff for potential fraud and misuse is high. Yes, there will always be a minority of dysfunctional ne’er-do-wells who will put sugar water in their children’s bottles and buy chips instead of vegetables. But I doubt the regulations are stopping those people now. They can sell what they buy to others and then go to MacDonald’s or buy beer with the proceeds.
Then why the restriction on buying, say, dried beans in bulk? It’s hard to think of better nutrition-dense bang for the buck than that.
Wow. Despite reading the pdf I completely missed that it was wic and not snap. My apologies for my dunce moments.
The articles I’m seeing say it’s SNAP. But i think there are a number of bills in the works in WI and elsewhere.
As I said above, it is to prevent them from selling the “surplus”. Yes, of course it is ridiculous!
Yes, the point is that in WI they want to apply the existing WIC restrictions to SNAP. They didn’t make these restrictions up out of thin air: they copied them from WIC. That’s their justification.
Some people would live on white rice, beans and potatoes if allowed, but that’s not the kind of healthy, varied diet WIC is trying to promote, hence the bulk prohibitions. You can buy brown rice and in some places, you can buy up to 32oz of some of the “bulk” items.
I’m pretty sure the intent is to reduce the welfare queens. The implementation of that goal is definitely questionable, but let’s be reasonable, it’s not because anyone is trying to hurt the poor.
It doesn’t seem like someone would hand out $80 billion in an attempt to punish the poor.
I’ve been doing (born into, more so) the Food Stamp Challenge with my family for maybe a decade and a half now. It’s not easy when my mom tells me not to eat as often because we’re running out of Food Stamp money or whatever it’s called. Just a few more months and I finally get an opportunity to blossom and not leach off of taxpayers for ~15 years like my mother has done and will most likely continue to do.
Here’s my first shot:
Dozen eggs $1.50
Bulk oatmeal $ 1.50
Whole chicken $5
Bunch romaine $1
Onion .50
Plain big jar of Greek yougurt - around $6 (not sure exact $)
whole grain bread - around $6, but I would use only about 1/4 in one week
I believe that I might have some money left to buy myself my Bud Light.
It is also a good idea not to eat for one day / week, it makes you healthier. So, if above is not enough (my my estimate, it is plenty), then just skip eating one day, tab water is paid by a water bill, not food stamps.
@miamiDAP - so the only veggie/fruit type items you would have in a week is 1 bunch of romaine (limited nutritional value) and an onion? These kind of diets are fine for a week, but aren’t sustainable long term.
@MiamiDAP - You 're not allowed to buy alcohol with SNAP funds. So the good news is that you can buy a little more food with your allotment, perhaps some fruits and vegetables as doschicos suggests. The bad news is that if you really were receiving food assistance, you wouldn’t have a lot of extra money lying around with which to buy beer.
Fasting one day a week is hardly the answer to this problem of giving the poor a pittance to eat on. Children, and many adults, can’t or shouldn’t go without food for a day, much less a day every week. Even the suggestion that poor people could stretch their pittance by semi-starving themselves is shocking and repugnant. IMO.
Fasting is for the rich and healthy. I say rich because typically those who are affluent can muscle through one day a week for their supposed health (which I totally think is ridiculous) because they know the next day will be filled with plenty of healthful choices. Also, T1 Diabetics can’t fast without endangering their lives, , and those who are barely scraping by nutritionally can’t afford a day of nothing.
I do agree with varying ones caloric intake over the course of a week. In my case, if I drop down to 1000 calories for a day or two, it seems to help jumpstart my metabolism/weight loss. Again, likely not an issue for someone who is food insecure…it’s a problem of affluence.