In the book $2 a Day I saw that SNAP was the main thing that each of the families had, and for most poor families this is the only help they can receive from the government. Kathryn edin and Luke Shaefer make the statement that welfare is dead in the story more than once because it seems that nobody is getting welfare anymore because it ran out of money to give away. Another program I recognized as helping the poor in this book was housing assistance, in which the family received their own living space without having to pay for it in full. They usually will spend 30% of the money they make each month towards their housing.
I believed these two things (if working together for poor families) could ensure that everyone would have both of these things (security from malnutrition with food aid and security from homelessness with housing assistance), and with housing and food security, life would become better for them. But it seems the benefit levels we offer now do not provide the security I had expected.
With SNAP the family receives a card, like a debit card, that the government will put a specific amount of money on it every month for the family to solely use on buying groceries. The amount of money that the government puts on a card depends on how many people will be living off of it, how much money their household has, and some calculations based on child care costs. Even with food stamps (SNAP benefits) more families tend to still go hungry however.
If this is their only source of income they have nothing to buy things like socks and underwear for themselves or their children. Another priority they may have is to keep the electricity on in their home along with the heat and air condition. Because many families place these needs over their need for food they exchange their SNAP benefits illegally for cash. When they do this they will lose 50 – 60% of their money because depending where you live people will only give you 40 – 50% in cash for what you gave them in SNAP. For example, if you gave someone $100 in SNAP they will only give you $40 -$50 in cash. Even though they are losing a lot of spending power many families do this to have cash to pay for other bills and things they need. This is why they still often times go hungry even when they have these benefits. If they used them correctly families would be well fed, but may be sitting in a cold, dark house, without proper clothing, which can be just as hard to get through, if not harder in some cases.
If I could make a change to this system it would be that the people using SNAP can take out 1/4th of their benefits as cash that they could spend on any bills they may have. Then they would not be losing money and risking 20 years in jail over trying to make ends meet. On top of that 1/4th should be able to be spent on nearly anything that a person may need such as clothing, or toiletries in convenient stores such as Walmart. This would not work however if they were trying to buy name brand clothes from the mall or clothing stores. The remaining ½ would then be used solely for grocery items. They would still not be eating the best if this were the case, but I believe it would be more food than they would have than if they were selling their SNAP and only receiving half of what it’s worth. They would not need to take out 1/4th in cash or use the other 4th for other items and could use it completely on food if they preferred as well, but in this way they would have more freedom with how they could use the money without losing profit. I believe this would give them more stability along with confidence. This would also allow them to buy clothing for job interviews or soap to be clean for the interviews which would give them higher chances at getting a job.
[One thing to keep in mind is that the SNAP benefits are calculated using a formula that tries to provide families with sufficient consumption levels to provide adequate nutrition for everyone in the household. The model assumes that people will buy the least expensive foods, that may require significant preparation and cooking time (potatoes, dried beans, peas, lentils, and rice would probably make up a bulk of calories for persons living on the most thrifty food budgets). In fact, we know from research on typical shopping habits of persons using SNAP that they consume foods in ratios that are approximately similar to what most Americans not using SNAP would buy (including some pre-processed foods, a significant amount of meat, and levels of sugary drinks and snacks that just about match the already unwholesome diets of most Americans—about 20% of purchases). If you cut the levels of SNAP benefits, there are real risks that persons receiving food assistance will have household members becoming malnourished. Of course, your point is that some of the poorest persons receiving SNAP are already sacrificing their nutritional well-being to keep the heat on, buy underwear, or get the car fixed so they can continue arriving at their workplace on time each day. Your policy suggestion makes a lot of sense if we add something like the TANF cash benefit and LIHEAP utility assistance to the existing SNAP and school lunch programs, so that poor families would get a whole package of benefits to cover their basic necessities. While a guaranteed minimum income or guaranteed employment (to poor persons who make reasonably adequate workers) would also achieve your goal of ensuring people enjoy security in housing, food, and some other basic essentials such as heating in winter, transport to workplaces, new clothing, and so forth, it seems politically unfeasible to create a guaranteed minimum income or guaranteed employment situation for Americans. Therefore, your policy might be the reasonable substitute: a sort of consolidated welfare program that combined the functions of the Food and Nutrition Service of the USDA with the Housing Subsidies of HUD with the TANF-type cash benefits from Health and Human Services and the medical benefits of Medicaid. You apply for one thing, and get the subsidies and benefits from all the programs bundled together. You would gain some efficiencies (similar to the guaranteed minimum income, which would be the most efficient program of all), but you would continue the selective and monitoring functions that Americans seem to demand as they regulate the poor and monitor their behavior to ensure that they are really deserving, and not becoming dependent on welfare.
Without a housing subsidy it is nearly impossible to have your own living space for your family. If you are lucky enough to have a small space of your own it would be hardly livable at all. Therefore, the poor often live with other family members or friends, when this is not available there are homeless shelters, but the book $2 a Day states that they kick you out of many homeless shelters after about three months. With housing subsidies, a family gets a small, but livable place to live in and call their own. This also helps them to feel more stable and confident than they’d feel otherwise. Paying only 30% of how much income the family makes every month is very reasonable a price. The government then pays the remaining balance of the apartment. I believe if poor families have a stable home they would have less stress and be able to feel more confident in looking for a job along with more time to do so. This program also gives them an address they can put on applications for jobs. I remember in the book jobs may discriminate if a person puts a homeless shelter as their address on an application and therefore they often do not waste their time to follow up.
With both housing and SNAP assistance poor people could have a roof over their head and food in their fridge. This will take a lot of stress off of them about where they are going to sleep that night and when they’ll be able to eat again. They will also have more time to look for a job now that they do not have to worry as much about shelter and food and this will make them more confident as well. They will have an address to call home, and they will have means to have proper hygiene to better impress the person in the interview. I also believe the feeling of stability will give them an over-all better outlook on life as a whole.
That's a critical point you are making about the need for the welfare safety net to provide persons living in poverty with a shield against stress and desperation. Labor is only free if it can have a choice of which jobs it accepts, and if we use desperation and stresses of poverty to force labor into any job that comes along, we are diminishing the liberty of workers. Likewise, as you point out, if we make poor people insecure and push them into chaotic lives because of their poverty (poverty often resulting from their health problems, their mental health issues, their family problems or break-ups, and their vulnerability to the whims of business owners or the fickle nature of the business cycle, and only in exceptional cases due to character defects such as dishonesty and laziness), then we make it that much more difficult for persons to climb out of poverty. We ought to make getting out of poverty something that is easy to accomplish, and the policies you are recommending aim to do that, and recognize the flaws in existing welfare safety net we have now.
No comments:
Post a Comment