Another side of the food stamp debate?

[counterjockey]

My store recently started participating in the state EBT/food stamp program. So far the majority of our trouble has been back-office problems with our registers, but when our POS terminals know what to do with the cards things go smoothly.

As a chain c-store (upper midwest US, no, not that one, or that one...) we don't do much with groceries. We have some milk and orange juice; bread, butter and lunchmeat; and a very limited stock of canned soups and pastas. Our business really is the old "gas and smokes, chips and cokes" model, and a cooler full of mass-market beer.

My coworkers and I have already seen some of the classic food stamp shenanigans occur, such as the mom buying milk, cereal, and a loaf of bread on the EBT card, and then paying cash for cigarettes and beer--with either an absurdly large bill ($100 to pay for a box of Reds and a six-pack of Bud, making us clear out $85 or so in change) or with a $20 from a wad of them.

Today, though, I'm shuffling around the internet and find an interesting breakdown of government spending programs, showing which provide the best and the worst return on investment, so to speak.

Link here to firedoglake

Food stamps return $1.73 to the economy for every $1.00 of gov't spending, as determined by an analyst with Moody's economy.com. Tax cuts, however, return around $0.29-$0.37 on the dollar. The stimulus checks of last spring (and maybe this spring too) return $1.02 on the dollar.

I may find some of the quirks and red tape of the program annoying at work, but in general it's a good idea. When we were growing up, my family had to lean on the local food pantry a time or two, or money from grandparents, or else robbing Peter (screw the light bill!) to pay Paul (Amoco for gas to get to work.) My parents were and still are hard-working folks. Us kids had to share them with our jobs and most of the time we got the short straws, but now that we're older--now that we know we'll have to do the same-- it's a little easier to understand.

As I discussed this with my little brother, he mentioned a good point: the cigarettes and beer, for which the mom in our example pays cash, are about the most highly taxed products on the market. Add a tank of gas ($0.40 a gallon or more is state/federal tax) and a few bucks' worth of Iowa Lottery (a tax on those who don't do math!) and I suppose they've done their bit.

Does this make it a little harder to think of some of these folks as "entitled" or "freeloaders?" Does this say anything good or bad about the system? Does it make the whole thing any more or any less annoying? Anyone care to discuss?

[Boozy]

Poor people can be good for the economy. They spend every single nickel they have which keeps the economy pumping, and their luxury goods tend to be of the highly taxed variety (cigarettes, alcohol) which is good for government revenue. I'm making some pretty broad generalizations here (many poor people don't smoke or drink), but there are statistics to back it up.

Poor people are also bad for the economy. They're poor because they are either unemployed or underemployed (whether by choice or because they can't find work). That's a waste of human capital, and that's frankly of greater concern. They are consumers but not producers. And the US is currently learning that the collapse of a consumer-based economy is not a pretty thing. So we need to be careful about offering programs that partially remove the incentive to work without removing the ability to spend.

Regardless, food stamps are a good thing in my opinion. They cost the government relatively little (or increase tax revenue in some cases), and they are a necessity in any country that considers itself civilized.

I`m sure there are people who abuse the system. But there are rich people who cheat on their taxes, too; that`s something that costs us far more money in lost revenue, and yet I see 20 tirades against EBT abusers as I do against tax evaders. I think that comes down to the thinking we have in this society that it is somehow inherently shameful to be poor. If you`re poor, you have to be a paragon of virtue just for people to not think you`re a piece of trash. But we tend to forgive the rich anything.

[crashhelmet]

I agree with Boozy here but may be for more heated, underlying reasons.

Foodstamps, WIC, Section 8, Welfare, etc is a great program that's designed to help those out in need and as you pointed out, help our economy. It's the abusers of these programs that hurt us all. The ones that choose not to work, or have another kid, or find whatever loophole they can to get the funding.

I come from a fairly large family. There were 5 kids in our house with a single, military income. We got by because the military paid for our housing. it didn't matter if we were living on base or not.

There was a loophole in the welfare laws (I say "was" because I don't know if it still exists) that said something to the effects of if the primary earner was not at home or going to be at the home for a certain minimum time period, the family would qualify for federal/state assistance. Every time the Marines got sent out to sea for 6 months at a time, their famililes qualified.

Despite having their housing paid for and income still coming in, the spouses of these marines would go down to the local office and apply for aid. And they'd get it. This used to piss my mom off to no end.

The parents that use the programs to provide a roof over their kids heads and keep them from having to work a second job, I applaud them. The ones that are too lazy to go out and get a job and collect anything and everything that they can or collect when they don't even need to, I say cut 'em off.

CH