food stamps

Back in prehistoric times, we had WIC when our children were small (our youngest is about to turn 30, gasp!) I was working a full-time job and my wife was doing daycare in our home. I was also growing much of our food, with fishing / hunting for much of our protein. We were thankful that though we didn't have health care, our children did.

It was the help we and our family needed. I have worked for most of my life nearly 80 hours a week, and have paid more taxes than most people will make in their lifetime. By my working all the time, and no vacations for 8 years, we managed to dig ourselves out and be where we are today - to where we can now help others.

But I will never forget that the American people helped us when we need it, and for that reason, I don't mind being taxed, to help others. No man is an island, even those of us who would like to think we are self-made. :

Food stamps for those who are the working poor? I am all for it, after all, I was there myself many years ago. If you need a bit of help, I would prefer, personally, to see it going to people who are working hard and trying to create a situation where they don't need it, than to be just given to people who assume they never will need it. I have no problem if the government were to help the working poor to have the basics, I have lots of problem with giving money to those who aren't working at all.

just my dos colones, only worth 1/5 as much as 2 cents...

right on, Fred. to further what you said, I would like to see the folks who need food stamps be able to spend them on real, good, clean food grown by folks who care about it and them, rather than having to spend it on heavily processed food produced, distributed, and sold by giant corporations that are only beholden to shareholders.

I wish that nobody needed SNAP benefits. I think it would be wise for our culture to work toward that future, and I try to do so on a personal and business level. until we get there, it makes sense to make the best of the situation we're in. for me, that means accepting SNAP benefits for the food I produce, as well as seeds and plants to help others grow their own. it means sharing what I've learned about getting by with less and contributing to strengthening my local community. it might look different for other folks.

I am in agreement with nearly all of Paul's observations.

I would like to point out one of the most serious issues with food stamps (and every other "government program"). That is the actual cost factor for administration. In other words, for every dollar going to people for food, I would guestimate that there is tens, if not hundreds, of dollars being spent for the administration of the program: social worker's salary and computers and desks and chairs and electricity and real estate for offices and paper and their retirement funds and their medical package, etc., etc., and then of course that department has to have an accounting office with more employees and their needs, and then there is support staff for the social workers like secretaries and janitors, and supervisors, and supervisor's supervisors. And of course the building has to be handicap accessible, so you have elevators and automatic doors and wide halls which all requires a significant percentage of additional real estate space, and parking, etc., all of which are purchased with tax payer money. And then somewhere behind the scenes there is an ARMY of employees who actually create the forms, establish the mountains of pages of guidelines and training manuals (which means there is a staff of trainers and the real estate facilities they need to conduct training) and then countless hours of time is spent by legislators and their staff to carve out the legislation and regulation details, and their attendant yearly updates and revisions. And on and on. You get the picture. All that money could have been left in the hands of working Americans by way of lower taxes and then a LOT more Americans would not have needed help because we would be a prosperous country.

Instead of all that waste, I imagine it could be as simple as donating more surplus food to local churches and civic groups for their food bank programs with all costs being absorbed by volunteers who want to participate, instead of general taxation to take from EVERYONE whether you believe in the cause or not. Seems to me that if government really intended to help, they could write a simple business regulation that requires food retailers or wholesalers and/or farmers to donate a small fraction of a percent of all their food stuff to a local food bank type of charitable distribution center. Or better yet, offer an enticing tax incentive to farmers that donate food to local food banks and the like. But then no money would flow through government hands first, so government couldn't profit from it... so we know that won't happen.

The government way has a ton of waste and overhead, with employees all along the way stripping off funds to enrich themselves. The local charity/church/civic group/food bank way is American People helping other American People. The two aren't compatible, and the government can't possibly represent my interests or intents.

I've been in a very bad spot for over a year now, and desperately need food money, but refuse to dip into the government's waters. Instead, I have found good American people who have helped out, in exchange for my honest labor. In the process I am learning and experiencing the "farming life" so that very soon I will be able to set down roots (literally and figuratively) and start carving out my own living.

Just my opinion, and I do not view people with opinions that differ as any less valuable than myself. Just trying to put this out for thought. Issues like this tend to get tunnel-visioned to focus only on the emotional aspect of "some poor child starving to death". It's bigger and broader than "those who need food" because food is always always available if you need it. Anyway, the overhead and effort and added work and frustration of dealing with government bureaucracy seems contradictory to the sustainable mindset and incompatible with permaculture principles to me. But if that's your idea of fun, good luck to you.

I just want to say that I respect everyone's right to do what they want to do, and go about their affairs their own way, and I'm not trying to be judgmental or condemning to anyone.

All this reminds me of a book I read a little while ago, that has influenced my ideas on subjects like this. A relevant snippet for your consideration:

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

...

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

"The Law" by Frederic Bastiat

Regarding the administrative costs of the system "The Food Stamp Program is one of the nation’s largest programs providing benefits directly to low-income families. In 2006, the program provided benefits to 26.7 million people in an average month, at a combined federal and state cost of $35.8 billion. While most of these funds were spent on food stamp benefits for families, administrative costs totaled $4.8 to $5.7 billion, depending on how such costs are defined."

Even at the high number, you are talking administration only at 16%, not 10s, etc. For a program like this, 16% is a good number. It is too many charities that use 85 % of the money on extravagant salaries, etc. Let's keep things factual, I know there is a lot of hyperboyle out there. Honestly, you could remove all of the food stamp program, it would only be 4 months of war in Iraq. I personally would prefer my money going to feed people than kill people.

Regarding volunteering. That is good and it is good when people do it. But, I will point out when hard times come to one person, like an autoworker, they tend to come to the whole community. To rely purely on volunteer methods of ensuring people's needs, you doom those often most in need of going without. Those who are in communities that are thriving, can most likely get a job, though young couples may find it difficult at times to make ends meet (like we did). Imagine the suffering in the Detroit area during this recent economic crisis!

I think where volunteering can help is to go to restaurants, stores, etc asking for their waste for the purpose of giving to the poor. But, I will tell you the challenge will be sorting out those who need it, and those who want it so they can spend their money on drugs and booze. The government actually does a half way decent job of filtering out some of these people. The other thing is the first time some of that less than stellar food causes someone to be sick, you are facing a lawsuit.

I actually know a lot about this kind of thing since I was a minister (the poor kind) for seven years, which is why I needed help. I was working my tail off, but what I received was below poverty. I have since then decided the best way to help people is be wealthy and provide opportunities - which I do.

so I got some material from the USDA in the mail yesterday. some stickers, posters, the official legislative description of the program, a permit to accept SNAP benefits, and some training material. it answered one of my questions: until I get to some unknown-to-me minimum number in monthly SNAP sales, I'll be using paper vouchers. write down the card number and call into the local office to make sure the funds are available on the account and clear the voucher within 15 days. one copy to the customer, one for me. sounds pretty simple.

As the supreme-ruler-of-this-website-who-rules-with-an-iron-fist combined with:

- having said my bit
- having given others some time to say their bit
- having seen tel's post that is really on topic .....

I hereby command that this thread from hence forth, stay on topic. And that topic is being a farmer and deciding about whether to accept food stamps.

So no more about the system and whether it is good or bad. No more about governmental systems. No more about taxes.

This thread is in the farm income forum. And the one thing that is really important to me about this forum to have a strong focus on income. There are a lot of permaculture folks that think that the idea of income is not allowed, or that it cannot rise above minimum wage or ..... whatever. I think it is fair that some folks want to shoot for earning a million dollars a year, and others shoot for earning $2000 per year. As long as nobody says that the million dollars per year package is anything less than awesome. This is considered unacceptable to some folks. But it is perfectly acceptable here.

So, we're back to farm income. As a farmer who is exploring income - what do we think of food stamps? How easy/hard is it? Worth it?

tel jetson wrote:

binford6100 wrote:
When I first saw the original post, I thought he was suggesting food stamps as a way for organic/sustainable farmers to afford food for themselves. Sadly, this made a lot of sense to me.

could be a way for farmers to afford seed, supposing they're operating on a small-ish scale.  food stamps can generally be used to buy both food plants and seeds to grow food.  I'm not aware of a restriction on what is done with the food grown using those seeds or plants.

after perusing the long list of regulations for a little while, it's clear that I was mistaken about this. any seeds or plants purchased are for personal use only. it seems unlikely to me that anybody would ever check up on this, but if strict compliance is desired, don't sell the produce from seeds or plants purchased with SNAP benefits.

I also learned that in remote parts of Alaska where retail food stores don't exist, SNAP benefits can be used to purchase hunting, trapping, and fishing equipment.

got some more paperwork in the mail yesterday. from... J.P. Morgan. everybody's favorite old-time war profiteer. turns out they contract with several western states to administer their EBT programs, so I'll be working with them for redemption of benefits.

the limit for receiving a point of sale terminal free from the state office is $100 of EBT purchases per month. we're not going to hit that mark in the next few months, so I'll be manually authorizing EBT transactions by filling out vouchers and calling J.P. Morgan for authorization. then I've got to mail or fax the vouchers to J.P. Morgan within 15 days of the transaction to be reimbursed. we could buy or lease a POS terminal instead, but that doesn't seem worth the expense. so once I return the agreement, a W-9, and a couple other miscellaneous forms, J.P. Morgan will send me the vouchers and we'll be in business. should be in less than two weeks.

the agreement I signed was a lot of legal jargon, but there isn't anything really onerous in it, and I can withdraw from the program and the agreement any time I like by submitting written notification.

So, you are offering to sell $500 worth of produce. $300 is a cash transaction. And $200 is food-stamp-ish (FSI).

Once you have $200 worth of FSI, you do a bunch of paperwork, and, in time, you receive $200. Is that about right?

I'm asking because it seems like they might say that they will give you $300 for $200 worth of FSI to make up for the added hassle.

paul wheaton wrote:So, you are offering to sell $500 worth of produce. $300 is a cash transaction. And $200 is food-stamp-ish (FSI).

Once you have $200 worth of FSI, you do a bunch of paperwork, and, in time, you receive $200. Is that about right?

sort of. once J.P. Morgan gets the vouchers, they transfer the funds to our bank account within two days. but with each EBT transaction, the vouchers have to get to J.P. Morgan within fifteen days. so even if I only sell one dozen eggs for $5, I have to mail that in (or fax it) pretty quickly rather than wait until a substantial accumulation.

paul wheaton wrote:I'm asking because it seems like they might say that they will give you $300 for $200 worth of FSI to make up for the added hassle.

hmm. not totally sure I understand what you mean. we're specifically forbidden from charging more for EBT transactions. my guess is that the USDA figures that the advantage of accessing SNAP funds makes up for the hassle of having to make a telephone call to approve the transaction and clear the vouchers in a timely manner. filling out all the paperwork was a bit inconvenient, but I would say that, apart from writing about it on the internet, I've only spent maybe three to four hours actually working on this stuff.