Frank Bielec to take on food stamps?

[Fritz]

Original URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jul03/159083.asp


Effort to promote food stamps put in limbo

State paid $10,000 to find new name, but reports differ on implementation

By MEGAN TWOHEY
[email protected]
Last Updated: July 31, 2003

Believing the term "food stamps" carries such a stigma that it's making people reluctant to partake in the program, the state has commissioned an advertising agency to find a new term.

However, it is unclear whether these new names will be implemented, because of differing reports from state and federal agencies.

The state's Department of Health and Family Services, which spent $10,000 to have a Madison firm craft the new name, had hoped to introduce it soon in brochures, TV advertisements and other promotional materials. The business - Knupp and Watson - has been running several possibilities by focus groups.

But Susan Wood, the state's director of the Bureau of Income Maintenance and organizer of the food stamp program, said the department decided last week not to make a change.

The reason, she said, is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to change the name of the federal food stamp program nationwide.

At least, Wood said, that's the impression that she and other state food stamp directors were given at a July meeting with USDA officials in Washington.

Based on that news, Wood said, Wisconsin would give the advertising agency's suggestions to the USDA. "It doesn't make any sense to get out in front of the federal government, if they're going to get active on this," she said.

But a USDA representative, speaking on behalf of the federal official who hosted the meeting, said the federal government has no plans to change the name of the food stamp program.

She said state agencies can change names on their own, but any change at the federal level must be made by Congress.

"There is no plan to change the name for food stamps nationwide," Jean Daniel said. "We have asked states to keep us posted on any plans they have to do that."

In an interview after Daniel's comment, though, Wood said the state would not implement its own change, but would continue its plan to send the proposed names to the federal government.

Washington, Michigan and Minnesota have already changed their programs' names. The new name in Minnesota is "food support." Wood declined to reveal the names that were under consideration in Wisconsin.

Changing food stamps' image
Wood said the goal in Wisconsin is to change the program's image - to make food stamps seem less like welfare, and more like general assistance.

It's part of a broader effort to boost food stamp participation across the state by targeting elderly people, disabled individuals and the growing number of working poor families, she said.

The food stamp caseload in Wisconsin has greatly increased in the past five years, with its nearly 56% rise eclipsing the increases in 47 other states, according to records compiled by the Washington-based Food Research and Action Center.

County food stamp service providers say one reason for this is a new type of client.

"In the past, the majority of people on food stamps were those who never had much income," said Susan Fergus, a manager at the Human Services department in Racine County, where the food stamp caseload has jumped from 6,369 households in 1998 to 11,592 households as of May this year.

While those people are still on food stamps, Fergus said, "We often see people who once had considerable income. They've lost their job and exhausted unemployment."

Those are the people - perhaps too ashamed to apply for "food stamps" - whom the state wants to attract with a new name for the program.

State reforming program
Wisconsin has been criticized in the past for its management of food stamps.

To the chagrin of anti-hunger advocates, caseworkers in the mid-1990s didn't tell people leaving welfare that they were still eligible for food stamps. As a result, the food stamp caseload decreased.

Today, the Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee continues to take aim at the state for its food stamp error rate.

Wood said things are changing.

Last year, management of food stamps shifted to the Department of Health and Family Services from the state's Department of Workforce Development, which administers welfare.

Since then, the family services department has begun instructing food pantries on food stamps. The agency also placed food stamp applications that can be downloaded on its Web site.

With a $1.7 million grant it received in July, Wood said the agency plans to implement a computer program that would allow people to submit the applications via the Internet.

[Fritz]

It's part of a broader effort to boost food stamp participation across the state by targeting elderly people, disabled individuals and the growing number of working poor families, she said.

Whatever your feelings about welfare, do we want to encourage people to use the programs?

[Butter]

Originally posted by Fritz
Whatever your feelings about welfare, do we want to encourage people to use the programs?

No, of course not, all government programs are bad and useless and wasteful, right?

[Subby]

Originally posted by Fritz
Whatever your feelings about welfare, do we want to encourage people to use the programs?

Absolutely. As long as there are children or elderly who benefit from the program, then I think you need to do everything within reason to promote both its advantages and availability. At the same time, you continue to invest in 'back-to-work' programs that encourage adults to become self-sufficient.

[FishFan]

Anytime the governement hands out shit for free, we are not encouraging adults to become self-sufficient. These types of programs are basically non-existent and I don't see any encouragement to get these folks back into jobs. Why not have interest free loans for those who are struggling or without jobs? That way, the American public gets some of their tax dollars back instead of burning more money that I can use on gambling, dope, and hookers down on 38th St.

[condors]

i know people who work long hours at a factory(i used to work there) for not alot of money 300 a week before taxes. There are a number of couple that work there 600 a week 31200 a year before taxes, when you look at expenses they can have they have very small inexpensive homes and the money is entirely spent on the kids, i have no problem with people getting food stamps below a certain income

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by FishFan
Anytime the governement hands out shit for free, we are not encouraging adults to become self-sufficient. These types of programs are basically non-existent and I don't see any encouragement to get these folks back into jobs. Why not have interest free loans for those who are struggling or without jobs? That way, the American public gets some of their tax dollars back instead of burning more money that I can use on gambling, dope, and hookers down on 38th St.

And the poor and indigent would pay back these "interest-free loans" how exactly?

You do realize how many millions of dollars in student loans get written off every year, right? And at least someone with a college degree has a good chance of paying it back. Tell me exactly how you think the elderly are going to pay back an interest free loan, for example.

[WussGawd]

Important note. Of the few people I've known that were on WIC or Food Stamp programs, just about all of them worked...albeit at minimum wage or barely above it jobs.

[condors]

just wanted to add

i think if a man and women both work 40 hours a week even on min wage they deserve a decent place to live, i believe these people should get more support than someone who doesn't want to work or chooses not to, make it so someone who works 40 hours a week can get assistance and have people without employment work 40 hours flipping burgers or mopping floors in order to get help

[FishFan]

Originally posted by WussGawd
And the poor and indigent would pay back these "interest-free loans" how exactly?

You do realize how many millions of dollars in student loans get written off every year, right? And at least someone with a college degree has a good chance of paying it back. Tell me exactly how you think the elderly are going to pay back an interest free loan, for example.

Oh, sorry. I thought we were talking about trying to make people more self-sufficient and responsible instead of just giving away money to anyone that wants it.

I'm not talking about the elderly, who already get Social Security. I'm talking about those on unemployment and who are working, but struggling to make ends meet. How about giving loans to those people only to have them pay it back when they are back on their feet. I hate the idea of giving away money for free. Social Security does not bother me because you get basically what you put in. Welfare and unemployment policies need to be cleaned up. Big time. They are taken advantage of more than any other government program.

[Fritz]

Just attempting to pull this back into focus:

Forgetting the discussion on welfare programs themselves, should the agencies be involved with boosting partisipation in those programs?

[FishFan]

Originally posted by condors
just wanted to add

i think if a man and women both work 40 hours a week even on min wage they deserve a decent place to live, i believe these people should get more support than someone who doesn't want to work or chooses not to, make it so someone who works 40 hours a week can get assistance and have people without employment work 40 hours flipping burgers or mopping floors in order to get help

Who says they need to stop at 40 hours? I've worked much more than 40 hours a week at various points in my life when I have struggled instead of raping other hard-working Americans of their tax dollars.

[FishFan]

Originally posted by Fritz
Just attempting to pull this back into focus:

Forgetting the discussion on welfare programs themselves, should the agencies be involved with boosting partisipation in those programs?

No.

[condors]

fishfan who is watching your children when your working more than 40 hours a week?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by condors
fishfan who is watching your children when your working more than 40 hours a week?

Kids are the best, Condors. You can teach them to hate the things you hate. And they practically raise themselves, what with the Internet and all.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by FishFan
Oh, sorry. I thought we were talking about trying to make people more self-sufficient and responsible instead of just giving away money to anyone that wants it.

I'm not talking about the elderly, who already get Social Security. I'm talking about those on unemployment and who are working, but struggling to make ends meet. How about giving loans to those people only to have them pay it back when they are back on their feet. I hate the idea of giving away money for free. Social Security does not bother me because you get basically what you put in. Welfare and unemployment policies need to be cleaned up. Big time. They are taken advantage of more than any other government program.

Um, first off, employers pay for unemployment benefits, and I don't know if you've ever been on unemployment, but it isn't exactly living in the lap of luxury. Here in AZ, after taxes, it wouldn't even pay my mortgage, let alone any other living expenses. You're right unemployment needs to be cleaned up...they need to actually be reformed to reflect the real cost of living at this point.

When I hear that the Department of Defense got overbilled $2 billion dollars by Sprint just yesterday, I question the accuracy of this statement.

The government gets fleeced on other programs on a scale that dwarfs what is spent on WIC/Food Stamp programs.

You must also understand that "getting back on their feet" doesn't happen for a lot of people. The single biggest farce about the "unemployment rate" is that it doesn't track the long-term unemployed, those souls who looked for a job for 6 to 12 months and just gave up. With a recession that started seeing massive numbers of people lose their jobs three years ago, that's a pretty large number of people who are no longer getting unemployment benefits.

With regard to your proposal, understand that you are spending money by loaning money to people below market rates, so don't think your idea is going to allow taxpayers to get away scott free. You are also spending money to collect on such loans.

Not to mention the money spent to actually turn such loans over for collection and write them off as bad debts. I shudder to think what the ratio of bad debts for such a program would look like.

I know a guy who makes about $22,000 a year at his job. His wife earns even less (like $8K a year part time). He has a teenage daughter. I don't know if you realize it or not, but such a scenario means he's below the poverty line. For a lot of people, this may be the best things get. They may not get any better. There are some people that are like this. Do you just let them accumulate a mountain of bad debt on your interest free loans so they never have a chance to improve their lot? Is that really a good idea?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
Just attempting to pull this back into focus:

Forgetting the discussion on welfare programs themselves, should the agencies be involved with boosting partisipation in those programs?

I think the answer to this question, properly focused, is "yes."

If you take as a given that the democratic process has yielded support for a proogram that provides benefits for people under certain circumstances-- that says that it's better if these people get help to pay for food than to not get that help-- then it is suitable public policy to try to effect that goal as best we can.

For those who criticize government at every level and every facet for its inefficiencies, I recognize that this is a paradox.


However - there is a perfactly valid policy argument to be had over whether a program like this is good public policy. If you want to argue that the program is poor policy - that's fine. But it seems to me odd that one might conclude that even if the people support the program and think that it's a good idea, we shoudl try to undrmine it from the inside.

In my mind, that places "dollars" far ahead of "right and wrong" and leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.


If we are going to resolve to do something in the public interest, then we ought to do it as well as we can.

If you'd rather that the program didn't exist - then vote for the other guy.

[Buccaneer]

QS, it is not about intentions or public good, but about the execution. Despite my anti-federal govt rhetoric, there would be quite a few federal programs that I would support - if it weren't for the bureaucratic wastes, inefficiencies and lobbyist-centric mode of implementing policies (sorry). Why should we accept giving away $100 to a distant bureaucracy, they keep $90 and have $10 be given back to the people in form of assistance (like Food Stamps). At the state level, the numbers could be $75/$25 depending on state. At the local level, it could be even better ratio. I won't bring up private donations of food, time, assistance, etc. which can provide direct benefits to those in need because somehow, we have been discouraged from doing that. It is not a matter of voting for the other guy but to reduce the power and bureaucracy at the federal level and bring it back down to where it can do more good.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I think the answer to this question, properly focused, is "yes."

If you take as a given that the democratic process has yielded support for a proogram that provides benefits for people under certain circumstances-- that says that it's better if these people get help to pay for food than to not get that help-- then it is suitable public policy to try to effect that goal as best we can.

However - there is a perfactly valid policy argument to be had over whether a program like this is good public policy. If you want to argue that the program is poor policy - that's fine. But it seems to me odd that one might conclude that even if the people support the program and think that it's a good idea, we shoudl try to undrmine it from the inside.

In my mind, that places "dollars" far ahead of "right and wrong" and leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.

If we are going to resolve to do something in the public interest, then we ought to do it as well as we can.

"It's part of a broader effort to boost food stamp participation across the state by targeting elderly people, disabled individuals and the growing number of working poor families, she said."

The word I am focusing on, and perhaps I should not, is participation. Awareness and participation are somewhat different.

My feeling is that agencies should make people AWARE of the services they provide. In the case of something like food stamps, we should be happy if eligible people decide they don't need (or want?) to participate.

I realize this is not true for all services, but in the case of welfare type services, I do not think boosting partisipation should be the goal.

[Butter]

Originally posted by Fritz
My feeling is that agencies should make people AWARE of the services they provide. In the case of something like food stamps, we should be happy if eligible people decide they don't need (or want?) to participate.

What about the poor elderly who choose between spending their money on food or medicine? Maybe if they had food stamps, they wouldn't have to endure so much pain.

What about those who could help make their own lives and their children's lives just a slight bit better by having another $100 a month?

Why wouldn't you want to boost participation? Are you concerned that most of those who use the program are just "abusers of the system"? If so, that's an awfully cynical view. If not, what is the problem here?

[QuikSand]

I can absolutely agree with that, Fritz.

[SackAttack]

Social Security does not bother me because you get basically what you put in.[/b]

If that's the case, then why not grandfather out Social Security? If you're getting what you put in anyway, I really think it's best left in the hands of those making the money in the first place.

Many of them could probably do a better job with investing that money to ensure at least a moderately prosperous retirement than the federal government does.

[FishFan]

Originally posted by SackAttack
Many of them could probably do a better job with investing that money to ensure at least a moderately prosperous retirement than the federal government does.

Yes, but the government makes it their business to make sure those who would just blow their would-be Social Security tax have some sort of retirement fund.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by FishFan
Yes, but the government makes it their business to make sure those who would just blow their would-be Social Security tax have some sort of retirement fund.

Well, if you take as a practical given that our society isn't about to let people, no matter what bad decisions thay may have made, starve and go without medicine (as much as that pains you, I know)... doesn't this make sense? Isn't it better, if you detest government programs, to basically force older people have a stream of income to help support their care, and avoid having lots of old dummies running around needing a total handout for their food and medicine?

[FishFan]

touche.

I don't necessarily detest government programs. I just feel most are weak and taken advantage of. I know quite a few people that are drawing benefits when they could make it on their own. I really have no problem with Social Security and look forward to my supplemental monthly check when I hit 65.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by FishFan
touche.

I don't necessarily detest government programs. I just feel most are weak and taken advantage of. I know quite a few people that are drawing benefits when they could make it on their own. I really have no problem with Social Security and look forward to my supplemental monthly check when I hit 65.

When the crowd around here gets to be 65 (um, Bucc excluded ), those Social Security checks will resemble those Jerry received from the Super Terrific Happy Hour.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by cuervo72
When the crowd around here gets to be 65 (um, Bucc excluded ), those Social Security checks will resemble those Jerry received from the Super Terrific Happy Hour.

sad but true, right now it's pretty much a glorified pyramid scheme.

I'm not sure where I stand on the awareness/participation discussion. If we truly believed the programs were designed properly, I do think you would want full participation. That is, you'd have to believe these programs would actually help the indivudual help themselves, their children, etc. If you'd be happier if some people weren't participaing, that may be a sign that is is a poorly designed program.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I'm not sure where I stand on the awareness/participation discussion. If we truly believed the programs were designed properly, I do think you would want full participation. That is, you'd have to believe these programs would actually help the indivudual help themselves, their children, etc. If you'd be happier if some people weren't participaing, that may be a sign that is is a poorly designed program.

So why not make such a program manditory by creating a law that obligates people to partisipate?

[FishFan]

hey, fritz. how're you doing?

[Fritz]

heya fishy