I don’t disagree with the intent to make sure the money is used to provide adequate nutrition. But what started the one trainwreck I’d seen about food stamps being used for luxuries was when a poster related an incident when s/he was on food stamps, and had sensibly saved up some of his/her benefits for a small luxury - a small birthday cake. And then got hassled in the checkout line when people behind him/her saw that it was being paid with an electronic benefits card.
Not to mention that a one-size-fits-all restriction on foodstuffs is impractical in the real world. In that other thread, I mentioned how a nearby store at one time was selling lobsters at $2.99/pound, which was cheaper than chicken. Someone answered back that it was still a luxury item, and therefore off limits. That was some Class A logic going on there.
The thing is, sometimes so-called luxury items are on sale and are actually cheaper than staples. And some staples are healthier than others. If Joe Six Pack is regulating my shopping habits, how do I know that he wouldn’t consider whole wheat pasta to be a luxury item, and I should just be happy with white pasta? People can be awfully ignorant about nutrition. The best person to determine what goes on my shopping list is me. I know my own needs better than anyone else.
I admit that any sort of restrictions would be difficult and possibly wasteful to administer. What I disagree with is the notion that any critique or limitations on such spending proposed is equivalent to illigitimate asshattery.
In the real world, the sort of person who would squander charity in such a manner isn’t going to “live with the consequences” – they will instead find some other pocket (either government or private charity) to reach into, crowding out more legitimately needy (but less aggressive) recipients.
It is a matter of simple prudence for any charity provider to attach a few strings to discourage such abuses, to insure that as many genuinely needy recipients as possible are served.
Certainly, there may be individual cases in which purchase of luxuries would make sense.
A case could be made that individuals on social assistance should have the freedom to craft their own lists, taking their own needs into account.
However, equally a case could be made that, as a matter of social policy, a certain degree of oversight or supervision on such spending is warranted and necessary.
After all, the pupose of this spending is to relieve hardship for those unable to provide for themselves. No doubt many of those unable to provide for themselves are in those circumstances for reasons beyond their control - such as a failure of the job market - and are fully responsible individuals who could be trusted to spend such resources appropriately for themselves or their families - and such persons would no doubt be better off if the gov’t and social agencies simply left these decisions entirely up to them.
But certainly there will be at least some who require social assistance exactly because they have habits or disabilities which make such sensible planning beyond them. For such persons, a certain degree of guidance in decision-making makes sense - if they are inclined to blow their children’s allotment on some expensive luxury for themselves, it would hardly accord with the public policy goals of social assistance to let them fend for themselves.
I take it that a good deal of animus on thois topic is created by the notion that there is some sort of moral issue at work here - the notion that those on assistance should not enjoy themselves, should in effect be “punished” by being denied any luxuries or fun; that the “Taxpayer” finds it outageous that a person on the public teat is having cake and lobster. I can certainly see why this would create irritation on the part of those requiring assistance. That isn’t how I see it. Way I see it, the question is whether a certain degree of planning or total lassez-faire better accords with the public policy objectives of assistance.
SteveMB, what you’re describing, though, is a very different thing from the person who does spend the money wisely, while including a few luxuries. Which is what I mean to defend as a legitimate use of the monies.
On preview: Malthus, you bring up some good points. I just think that for the level of oversight you’ve described the onus is on the relief agency to prove the need in individual cases, where such supervision is required, rather than something that I’ve heard/seen as should be a standard for all such transfers.
(I’ll admit that part of my stubbornness on this issue is that I receive a VA disability pension - a needs based assistance program. So, while I don’t have the highly visible food stamps card, I am sure there are some people who would love to second guess many of my purchases.)
I agree with this. But what you’re suggesting is guidance and education, not draconian restrictions. This would be a matter for a social worker or educator. What was suggested, instead, was shopping lists created by legislators and voters.
Viewing this as a “moral issue”, as you put it, was indeed the tenor of that thread. I can well imagine someone like Rush Limbaugh arguing the point. Maybe this is just me, but I don’t want Limbaugh as my personal nutritionist.
Robyn, I’m also sorry to hear about your friend and about the asswipe who believes his tax dollars entitle him to be entertained by the details.
The shame is that there is so much PUBLIC information to be entertained by. Go to city council meetings - they are public and can be a complete hoot! Watch trainwrecks happen on the SDMB. Turn on the TV. Find out what movie star when to rehab this week! Its like these people become foaming at the mouth rabid if you have a secret.
And in the case of food stamps, the strings are there. Means-testing, renewing your application and being re-tested, caseworker oversight into your financial situation, and of course, the limitations on what you can buy with them. If they shop smart and have enough in their budget to afford a lobster dinner once in a while, who cares? That’s a behavior I want to encourage. Managing your finances to afford occasional luxuries is laudable and it’s one of the skills they’ll need to get off food stamps in the future. If we believe the amount of food stamps awarded is appropriate, then leave them alone and let them spend it as they see fit. Eating beans and rice for three weeks and underspending your food stamp limits and then buying a lobster dinner for the fourth week sounds perfectly fine to me.
If you have evidence people are gaming the system, underreporting income, or committing some other sorts of fraud, that’s one thing. Otherwise, the “you get X dollars, spend it as you wish, but if you spend it foolishly you’ll have to live on beans for the rest of the month” approach seems to work for the most part.
To get back to the OP, I generally tell people who think they’re entitled to private information because it either happened in the public sphere(a murder in a park, or road rage on a highway) that personal privacy extends anywhere a person goes, and to everything they do, even in public spaces. This policy protects the nosy as well as the nosed, and we should all consider ourselves lucky it does.
Minor hijack. I used to work at a State Park. Rules are that you have to purchase a motor vehicle permit to enter the park and occasionally people would insist that their taxes paid for the park and so on. The ranger in charge told us that should anyone say this, we were to give them a nickel (the amount of their taxes that actually went to the DNR) and send them on their way. Great boss. Shame I never had the chance to use it.
We had a member at the CSC a few weeks ago come up to the desk and whine to us that the cafe had charged her for the napkins she took (they had brought their lunches with them). “I’m a paying member-I BOUGHT membership to the museum-and they should NOT be charging me!”
So my supervisor went down to the cafe after she left. Apparently, she had taken a stack almost a foot high. :rolleyes:
My response to “My money pays your salary!” back in the day was always, “Really? Then I could use a raise.” (At least, my fantasy reply)
(Did someone inform the man in the OP about HIPAA?)
Sure. But how much are we willing to harass the responsible people ending up by no fault of their own in hardship just to prevent these “some people” from buying lobster and champagne on the first day of the month and letting their children starve the rest of the time?
Or alternatively, how much are we willing to pay to make sure that each grocery bill of a welfare recipient is thoroughly investigated by a civil servant?
I think that’s the main issue, indeed. Saying “Let’s them eat cake” doesn’t resonate well any more.
HIPAA and other medical record privacy legislation doesn’t cover missing persons searches or investigations - just the medical examiner/coroner’s report.
There is a well known process that determines what organizing philosophy our society follows in deciding how to spend our tax money. That process is called an Election. You as a Citizen and Taxpayer have the opportunity to vote in said elections for the candidate of your choice. That candidate will then sit with the other members of our Representative Democracy and determine how to collect and spend our tax monies, as well as the policies for their use.
Being a Taxpayer does not at any time allow you to act as sole arbiter of what is right, proper and fair in the expenditure of public funds. It does not entitle you to punish, attack or issue orders to others because public funds were used to assist them, or because they used public funds in the assistance of others. We as a Society have determined that such things are an acceptable use of public funds.
Again, if you desire to change these decisions, then you may attempt to do so at the ballot box. Good Luck With That.