“Missouri state
government moves to trim eligibility for food stamps” by Jo Mannies
Missouri is going to change the eligibility requirements for
acquiring food stamps which sparked controversy with the Missouri Association
for Social Welfare (MASW). The
modification will allow most “able-bodied” Missourians without dependents,
between ages 18-50, to receive food stamps only if they are “employed, seeking
work or are enrolled in an education or training program,” according to
Missouri’s Department of Social Services.
This change in eligibility would end the waiver on job
requirements that have be in place since the federal stimulus legislation in
2009. I do believe that having the
requirement of residents working or looking for jobs is admirable, especially
if people are unmotivated to work because they are already receiving
benefits. But many people are ill-equipped
with proper resources to support them in the working world. Also, who is considered
“able-bodied?” Does this include
individuals with mental illnesses?
If so, I feel like this change would prevent many people, such as those with
mental illnesses, from receiving food stamps because of job discrimination or
other problems that would prevent them from being a working citizen.
The change will not affect areas in which the unemployment
rates have continued to hold steady above 10 percent. This requirement will be waived for some rural communities
in which the unemployment rate is still high in order to help suppress some of
the lasting effects of the recession.
All other communities will be affected by the new requirement if it is
passed. Missouri’s unemployment
rate shows that seven percent of the population is still being hit hard by the
struggling economy. Governor’s Jay
Nixon and staff, as well as the Department of Social Services, remain
tight-lipped on just how many people will struggle with the change and just how
much money will be saved if the plan is approved.
If the proposal goes into effect next spring, Missouri would
be one of six states to eliminate federal benefits, which significantly boost
sales of local grocery stores and help prevent hunger. The MASW has noted that in previous
years, Missouri has always held the reputation of supporting its struggling
residents receive food stamps with the largest exemptions available. However, the Department of Social
Services has confidently stated that “the recession is over.” I look at their statement as an
implication that ineligible residents will be able to survive because the
economy has returned to normal.
They are very wrong with this assumption and should be ashamed about a proposal
that Missouri is not ready to handle.
According to the Missouri State Hunger Atlas (2013),
Missouri has definitely not returned to its previous state before the recession
as food insufficiency has increased to 16.7 percent, which is above the national
average of 14 percent. Missouri
currently ranks in the top 10 of “food insecure states.” The MASW will work with other
non-profit groups and residents in order to deal with the issue at stake and
instill hope within the community.
How do you feel about the proposed change to cut back on eligibility
requirements? Do you think it will
boost Missouri’s overall community and motivate residents to find work in order
to reap the benefits?
You brought up a good point about who is considered able-bodied. I foresee that some of those who would still qualify are those who have difficulty understanding how to go about proving it. I agree that there will be people who truly need the help who may not get it now. Yes, if you are able to work, you should be working, but it's not an easy time to find a job.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time withholding food from people. Limiting cash benefits, okay, but food? It's just not right.
It is good that the unemployment rate in MO (7%) is below the current national average, but I can't imagine that cutting benefits to the most vulnerable is a good way to retain that number. And yes, there is no correct way to define "able bodied". Lots of problems are caused by trying to broadly define individuals and groups where there is no clear definition. It just seems like one more situation where we are allocating money away from those who really need it, being people in rural areas in MO who are hungry and without other resources.
ReplyDeleteThe article states: "Nixon's staff and the Department of Social Services declined to provide details on how many people would affected, how much the cutback would save in state or federal money, and why the decision was made". This seems pretty suspicious. If they want support on this, the government should offer a lot more transparency, as opposed to none at all.