As I was Saying...

[paft.livejournal.com]

I was sorry to see that my original post was removed. Unfortunately, I was not at my desk when I was notified of the problem, so I could not alter it in time. Here is an amended version:

Remember Donny Ferguson, the Steve Stockman's aide who took the SNAP challenge and declared it a snap?

Well, it turns out he couldn't actually manage it.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/on-food-stamp-challenge-stockman-aide-busted-budget-but.html/

But Ferguson, who bought his food and planned his meals at the beginning of the week, ran into a problem when attempting to travel –

Foiled by TSA. Can’t bring my #SNAPChallenge food on the plane with me, and I’m not paying $50 for the privilege of losing checked luggage.

— Donny Ferguson (@DonnyFerguson) June 21, 2013

His solution? Since SNAP funding breaks down to $4.50 a day, Ferguson limited himself to $9 in meals while traveling.

#snapchallenge Update, Day 5: On the road. Buying $9 of food for dinner tonight and Saturday and Sunday.

— Donny Ferguson (@DonnyFerguson) June 22, 2013

The Huffington Post noticed Ferguson’s tweet and pointed out that adding $9 to the original bill of $27.58 brought Ferguson beyond the $31.50 budget.

In the end Ferguson spent an additional $8.45 — $6.70 to feed himself and the rest to buy two cans of pork and beans for a local food bank. He spent $36.03 in total, going about 14 percent over budget.

In short, he discovered that a single unforeseen circumstance can toss you off the SNAP budget.

And yes, that unforeseen circumstance could quite possibly include a SNAP recipient taking a flight. It requires no great stretch of the imagination to imagine someone on SNAP taking a bereavement flight in the event of a family emergency. (I took one last autumn, after a close relative was diagnosed with Stage 4 Cancer. Coast to coast for $10.) Nor does it break the bonds of credulity to imagine some other unforeseen event taking place that could have the effect of forcing the recipient to spend more than what is allotted by SNAP.

Not that this matters, of course, because we've reached the stage where, for many on the American right, it's about whether or not people are worthy of being fed -- not whether or not they can feed themselves adequately. We seem to be approaching a mindset similar to the old British poor laws, in which recipients were deliberately starved and humiliated on the dubious grounds that poverty is an indication of of laziness, shiftlessness, or some other moral malaise.

It is my opinion that the issue should not be whether or not we approve of everyone who gets aid. It should be whether or not they need it.

.

Comments

[404.livejournal.com]

But you will complain, regardless of your training or expertise, on the state of the current implementation.

[paft.livejournal.com]

404: But you will complain, regardless of your training or expertise, on the state of the current implementation.

Yes, when the current implementation is leaving people with inadequate food supplies, I will complain, just as I will complain if a recently built bridge comes tumbling down on a clear day during normal rush hour traffic, even though I can't answer technical questions about how to build a bridge. I will also complain if houses start collapsing due to poor engineering and construction, even though I can't answer questions about engineering and construction.

[404.livejournal.com]

So how much should the government assist the poor?

[paft.livejournal.com]

To the extent to which they are not going hungry or having to do without needed medical care.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So, your answer is 100% of what they claim to need. You could have just said so 50 comments ago.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Woah woah woah.

When did she use "what they claim to need" as the measuring stick for what they get?

We can all see someone who has food and medical care and hear them say they need more, but if we see that they are fed and healthy, that "what they claim to need" may not be identical with "what they need"

So don't go straw-manning *that* hard. You'll look much more reasonable if you straw man slightly less hard.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

When did she use "what they claim to need" as the measuring stick for what they get?

How can you tell from the outside, as a government bureaucrat, whether someone is going hungry or lacking medical care? You have to rely on what the person reports as to what they need. So that is a direct translation of what she said, whether you admit it or not. Or are you going to use the NSA to keep track of whether everyone receiving benefits is actually needing them?