The basic question expressed in the article: As the economy improves, should states continue waivers that were enacted during the recession to allow healthy adults who are not working to get food stamps longer than the law's limit?
The primary state discussed in the beginning of this article is Maine, as it is one of the states that say no to the above question. "You've got to incentivize employment, create goals and create time limits on these welfare programs," said Mary Mayhew, the commissioner of health and human services in Maine. As more and more states plan to turn to this as the economy improves, it means that life gets tougher for those childless adults who still face barriers for getting back into or finding work. These are people who are perhaps have a limited education and are struggling to get back into the workforce. So, the opposing argument is that this revision in food stamp waivers could increase hunger and health problems for those unable to find work. One woman in the article asks, how do you expect people to live and feed themselves and survive with nothing?
This is an example of a policy that could change as a result of the post-recession economy. It's a challenge to say what is right here... I understand the morality behind ensuring there is a way to get food for those who cannot find work but I also believe in incentivizing employment and enforcing time lines. What's your opinion?
This is a very difficult question to answer. It is hard to think about taking away some people's way of getting food and essentially their survival while they are unemployed. However, I really think that these programs which were instated as temporary should remain temporary. Not only because it provides incentive to find employment, but because a policy shouldn't remain in place longer than it was supposed to.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there should be an incentive to reduce the number of non-working healthy Americans; however, I am uncertain if removing food stamps is an appropriate solution. Many employers will only employ a certain number of the unemployed, which would lead to the remaining unemployed to suffer. Rather than removing food stamps all together, I suggest that there should be a time frame in which the unemployed will be supplied with food stamps. Giving a limited time for a supply of food stamps will motivate the unemployed to actively search for a job.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that this is a very difficult question to answer. While I understand both sides of the argument and feel that it is difficult to take such an essential survival program for individuals hit hard during the previous recession. I have to agree with Shelby that these programs were created to be temporary and should stay that way in order to give people incentives to work otherwise why would people go back to work when the policy allows them to get what they need without having to put in the effort of employment.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has worked at a food justice non-profit, I saw a lot of people who were hungry and struggled to navigate all the hoops you have to jump through to get food assistance from the government, or even our organization.
ReplyDeleteEspecially during "normal economic times" getting food stamps, or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) Benefits is not easy. For one of my classes on study away in Philadelphia we had the assignment to apply for a welfare assistance program without using the internet (experiential education at its finest), and I will say this assignment was far more challenging than most of my day to day work at K. The system as it stands certainly does not dis-incentivize working (excuse my double negative). If anything it is so inaccessible that it does not always reach the people that need it most, and especially if you are a single, able-bodied adult, the maximum amount of benefits you can receive is three month's worth every three years, unless they work 20 hours per week, take state job-training courses or volunteer for about six hours per week.
If we are going to enforce living in an economy where we rely on 5.2 - 5.5% unemployment, we have to, at the very least be willing to feed those people.
I agree with Beth that these programs do not take away the incentives of finding employment. I also think that it is naive for states to believe that because the economy is doing better according to statistics, that the entire economy is on the upswing. Since the recession there has been a large increase in the income disparity within the country. Therefore, it is quite possible that despite the fact that the economy seems to be recovering, these programs that were instituted during the recession are still very necessary.
ReplyDeleteBronte brings up a great point, which we've been talking about in class. Although the economy is technically recovering, the recovery has been much less significant than it has in been after previous recessions. I do think that the bulk of funding for these programs that were enacted in times of crisis should gradually taper off, yet they should be extended until it's appropriate.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting but a "touchy" subject to talk about. In order to maintain the economy in good-standing and possibly attain a full recovery, all these programs should be regulated. As many of you mentioned above, I also believe that these programs should be given a limited time.
ReplyDelete