Foodstamp Reform: A Response To The Don

The Don has made some interesting points about the Foodstamp Program, which I feel is worth discussing here as well. Don’s first two complaints about the program are concerns I’ve had about it for a long time.

“1.The Foodstamp Program is outdated because it has no restriction on items: Customers are free to buy any cold food item, including soda, candy bars, gum, potato chips, etc.

2. The Foodstamp Program is wasteful of tax payers' money: Customers are free to spend funds however they wish, in which they tend to buy expensive items (such as made to order sandwiches) rather than basic foods (such as flour, bread, packaged meat) for wholesome meals.”

The system is wasteful because it allows people to spend money on foods that are expensive rather than more basic necessary foods. People are also allowed to buy unhealthy foods. To me this seems unacceptable since the program was intended to help people. Don’s third point is that the stamps are abused on non-food items such as cigarettes and alcohol. I seem to remember some fraud cases involving the sale of alcohol in exchange for food stamps. This is illegal but a certain amount of corruption is involved in any program this size since there are quite a few evil individuals in the world.

“4. The Foodstamp Program sets no goal: Foodstamps customers are given no incentive to get out of this Foodstamps-dependent state. On the contrary, it encourages customers to remain in this state.”

Any welfare without a limit is bound to have a number of users who see no reason to better themselves when they can get a free ride. This is another form of corruption and these people have as much a share in evil as the others.

“5. The Foodstamps Program rewards immorality: People who have premarital sex and get pregnant are easily eligible for Foodstamps. This mindset in a way rewards premarital sex. Only those in financially desperate situations should be eligible for Foodstamps.”

Point five I disagree with. Unlike Don, I am not convinced that premarital sex is immoral in all conceivable cases. I could provide examples I think explain this position here but that would be going off topic. This said I would not engage in premarital sex because of the risks of unplanned pregnancy. I do not believe that food stamps themselves are sufficient incentive to convince people to get pregnant out of wedlock.

To begin with, unplanned pregnancies cause extreme emotional strain, which is aversive enough that I doubt any benefit from the stamps would be seen as a reward. Also, raising the child itself would be even more emotionally and financially straining even if one has food stamps to alleviate some of that. The problem here is not with premarital sex but with sexual promiscuity. Those who engage in unprotected sex repeatedly and get pregnant many times over are a drain on the system. I believe these individuals are evil or immoral because they ensure almost beyond doubt that their many children will grow up in poverty and will likely not get out of it.

I am sure it is unintentional but Don seems to lump all premarital pregnancies into the category of needing the assistance of foodstamps. I can see how teenagers and younger couples might need the assistance since they are the least likely to be financially secure. However, there are many individuals who are in this situation that are financially capable of supporting themselves and do not use foodstamps.

With a time limit imposed upon use of the system and the help of someone like a social worker as Don suggests I would expect a decrease in the waste of taxpayer money. The downside is a time limit might also increase the number of abortions since unwed or even wed couples may choose to abort rather than bear the great expense of raising another child. At the very least the poor may be forced to put the children up for adoption, which would actually increase the burden upon the state. A time limit may also drive some couples to be more responsible and use protection or abstain from intercourse. I think a majority of people would use the options of abortion and adoption since there is a deficiency of self-control and responsibility in many individuals. The good news is if the children are given to the state for adoption it is possible they would be raised to be more responsible than their parents. But that would require an overhaul of an entirely different system, which is already strained and does not do a good job for the majority of unfortunate children. It should begin to become obvious here that the problem is not all with the system but with people themselves.

Don’s ideas for reform are good but I would make a few suggestions. Make it a food card system instead of a food stamp system. Instead of just restricting the food items have set standard meals that all users receive weekly. The meal size would be based on the height and weight of the individuals receiving the food credits. It would be enough to keep them healthy but not allow them to over indulge since it is only meant to keep them from starving. The cards would have a limit of three meals a day given out weekly. Using cards would have the added benefit of allowing the government to track expenditures and make oversight a little easier. I think someone would still come up with a way to abuse the system for profit, but like I said before some corruption is unavoidable. Until we change people we will never have a truly efficient system.