5.04.2007

food stamps...

A new measure is being put forward to allow wider access to food stamps. The previous set of rules blocked deadbeat parents and unemployed who didn't attend job-training classes from receiving them. The Reps are mad again...

"This make no sense to me whatsoever," said Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, when discussing allowing parents who owe child support to be allowed to get food stamps. "Deadbeat parents will be laughing all the way to the grocery store on this one."

I'm trying to figure out where the laughing comes in.

Personally, I don't much like deadbeat parents. Seeing how some states deal with them, I'd like to see a more focused effort to get to them. Withholding food, however, is a bit on the drastic side. According to Chippewa.com, the actual value works out to $80 a month, less than $1000 a year. Given the choice between a desperate and hungry parent not caring enough to even contemplate child support, or a fed and possibly working parent...I'd choose to give out the stamps. And for that minor value, does Suder realize that they aren't eating nearly as well as he is on his $45,000+ yearly salary, including $88 per day whenever in Madison on state business?

I find it a bit funny that he gets a bigger daily food stamp than the homeless are granted in a month, although he does deserve credit for refusing to accept his yearly pay raise since 2000. And when he's making efforts to include our farmers in state health care, I find this reaction a bit over the top. As a guy who seems to be looking out for the little guy, with his heart in the right place, what's so off the wall about feeding deadbeats?

My suggestion would be to let them eat, but enforce a stricter regimen of support. In Mississippi, for example, you cannot apply for a job without signing a consent form that allows the state to review your records to see if you owe child support. The garnishing of your pay is automatic. It's a sad thing that societal issues have forced that in Mississippi, but it's still an effective and honorable law. Why not nationwide?

No comments: