Mark Price slaps down Nathan Benefield’s failed rebuttal of Rep. Mike Sturla on the Corbett administration’s food stamp asset test:
To recap, Sturla said:
“We’re going to take the concept of the safety net and flip it and tell people they have to impoverish themselves before they get the benefits.”
And then Benefield said:
Just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding the outspoken representative, I Googled the definition of impoverish and came up with “To reduce to poverty; make poor.”
Indeed! Welfare programs like food stamps were designed to help poor people, and the administration’s policy will work to ensure it serves only poor people.
To which Mark Price replied:
As I often tell interns and students, Google is a powerful tool, but it’s only as powerful as your own understanding of a policy debate. A key concern with the DPW’s asset test, as Rep. Sturla correctly notes, is that it could potentially force low-income families who have experienced a job loss or a serious illness to spend down their meager assets in order to qualify for food assistance. Forcing hungry low-income families to spend down their savings makes them more vulnerable to having unexpected expenses that could trigger a mortgage default, eviction or loss of access to transportation. In other words, the less savings a family has, the greater the risk that an unexpected bill will make it harder for them to get back on their feet and off of public assistance.
Another way to think about it is to consider what Nathan would be saying if we were talking about introducing a new tax bracket for millionaires.
I bet Nathan would agree that a new millionaire’s tax bracket would create an incentive for people who earn close to a million dollars to avoid earning more money, and having their marginal income taxed at the higher rate.
We can debate how much of an effect this actually has, but the asset test is not any different. It’s a new marginal tax bracket for poor people. It encourages poor people to avoid building up their savings, and to spend down their assets in order to stay on food stamps. And I think there’s every reason to believe that poor people are more sensitive to high marginal tax rates than rich people are, since the stakes are much higher for them. A rich guy wants to avoid paying more taxes, but for a poor person, it’s about whether or not you can eat.
I suspect Nathan actually understands this very well, but he is playing for Team Republican so he’s not going to acknowledge it.
I agree 100% with Sturla. But, the fact is 4000 people @ $3/day is roughly $360,000/mo. That's pretty much peanuts for a large program like SNAP.
I believe the TRUE intent of the asset test is to discourage people from even applying for the benefit in the first place.
Where do you get the belief that you are entitled to reallocate as much of a wealth individual's money as you deem fair?
In the same way as the rich and powerful believe they are entitled to more money from the middle class and the poor. They do this by trying to destroy social programs. This will protect what they have – it's understandable. No one want's to loose anything. But since I'm closer to being poor than wealthy I must side with the poor. Even the Romans knew it was good politics to throw bread to the poor and provide the games. If we don't keep the poor happy our country probably won't last as long as Rome. I really can't see how any middle class person could ever side with the rich. They can afford to defend themselves.
Nov08 What a wdorenful challenge to each of us to find ways to be works of mercy in our daily lives! Thank you for the reminder, and for opening your heart and your experience. Your vulnerability is very disarming. I have to say, though, that I think a certain dose of reality is helpful when considering helping people on city streets who ask for money some of them, far from being really needy, are actually making a pretty sizable income preying on others’ compassion. Not to say that we should write off every person like that, but I think that there are better ways to show mercy than to give them cash buying a meal, for example, or helping them to find resources like soup kitchens and shelters so that they can get back on their feet. Also, I agree that we need to offer time and the gift of relationship taking a person into a restaurant and actually sharing a meal, being willing to hear their story and promising to pray for them is, in my opinion, much more valuable than a dollar in a cup.
Pingback: More People Are On Food Stamps Because There Aren’t Enough Jobs - Keystone Politics