Pennsylvania to impose asset test for food stamps

[kpete]

Pennsylvania to impose asset test for food stamps

By Alfred Lubrano
Inquirer Staff Writer


Pennsylvania plans to make the amount of food stamps that people receive contingent on the assets they possess - an unexpected move that bucks national trends and places the commonwealth among a minority of states.

Specifically, the Department of Public Welfare said that as of May 1, people under 60 with more than $2,000 in savings and other assets would no longer be eligible for food stamps. For people over 60, the limit would be $3,250.

Houses and retirement benefits would be exempt from being counted as assets. If a person owns a car, that vehicle also would also be exempt, but any additional vehicle worth more than $4,650 would be considered a countable asset.

Anne Bale, a spokeswoman for DPW, said the asset test was a way to ensure that "people with resources are not taking advantage of the food-stamp program," funded by federal money.

more:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120110_Pennsylvania_to_impose_asset_test_for_food_stamps.html?cmpid=124488489

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[kpete]

13. thanks xchrom

for being here
peace, kpete

[hobbit709]

2. Let's asset test the morons who come up with these ideas.

find out where their money came from.

[barbtries]

10. their money came from you and me

clearly government workers.

[hobbit709]

55. But who else pays them something

This decision didn't come from the lower levels.

[theAntiRand]

3. Sounds like a great way of ensuring people have to depend on assistance forever

Don't know what century it is in Pennsylvania, but $2000/$3250 is not exactly "resources" anymore.

[Ian David]

4. $2,000 is about enough for a couple root canals. n/t

[leftyohiolib]

18. not if you need a crown to go with that root canal

[dflprincess]

92. I had two root canals last spring - they cost $1500 apiece

The first root canal pretty much ate up the dental benefits. Luckily, they were on teeth that already had crowns. Unluckily, one of the crowns chipped badly and had to be replaced - that cost $1600. At least I had plastic to cover the costs and at least most my problems have been dental, not medical.

$2000 in won't cover the cost of many health plan deductibles for a single person anymore.

[happyslug]

76. $2000 has been the FEDERAL limit for assets since the 1970s

Now the states can use LOWER numbers for Welfare, but NOT Transitional Aid for Needy Families (TANF replaced AFDC in the 1990s). It is the same limit for SSI.

No push to change it at the present time. The last time Congress changed an asset test was in the late 1990s, when it became clear that the original income test that showed that someone was capable of doing full time work was no longer usable (EARNINGS that clearly showed that someone was capable of working, the first of five tests SSA uses when deciding if someone is entitled to Social Security disability).

The old test was a $300-$600 Test. If you earned less than $300 you were NOT earning enough money per month to show you were capable of doing full time work, If you were earning more than $600, that income clearly showed you were capable of full time employment. If the claimant was earning between $300 and $600 that was up to the Administrative Law Judge hearing the Social Security Disability case if the income showed the ability to do full time employment.

Good test when when minimum wage was $1.80 an hour (minimum wage in the early 1970s), $300 meant you had worked at least 150 hours that month or about 40 hours per week, but when minimum wage reached $5.25 per hour (and was LOWER in real terms then $1.80 in 1970 dollars), $300 dollars meant you worked about 60 hours a month or less than 15 hours hours per week.

I remember the 1990s, SSA Administrative Law Judges had by then long used the $600 test, but even they had problems ruling less than 30 hours a week was full time employment. As inflation continued it became clear SOMETHING had to be done. Thus the modern test was adopted, $700 but it is "income indexed" i.e. goes up with inflation. Today it is $1010 (i.e. if you are earning more than $1010 a month, you can NOT be ruled disabled for Social Security purposes). Please note this is EARNINGS, not income.

While Congress did change the income test in the late 1990s, it refused to even address the asset test. The Federal asset test excludes the home a person is living in, household goods, one Automobile and $2000 in other assets. SSI is now $674, thus not severely affecting people on SSI (unlike the old income test that was affecting people's Social Security disability). I do NOT see Congress changing the limit any time soon for there is no push for such a change.

Just pointing out how OLD is the $2000 limit AND what it may take to get it raised.

[Odin2005]

5. These morons keep telling poor people to save, yet...

...when we do try to save we get FUCKING DINGED by shit like this!

[dflprincess]

94. Oh, Odin2005 - they're telling everyone to save

We're suppose to save for retirerment.
We're suppose to save for our kids education.
And now we're being told we should save up for medical out of pockets (with Health Savings Accounts which, as it turns out, is a Wall Street scam similar to 401Ks).

And THEN they tell us the economy won't improve unless we start spending.

Genius, I tells ya, genius.

[boppers]

113. dflprincess, you're supposed to do both!

So, just hurry up and start making sooooo much money that you can save *and* spend as much as you want! Is that really that hard?

<--in case it was needed

[Brigid]

118. *shakes head*

You just can't make this stuff up.

[fasttense]

6. Did we asset test the banksters before we bailed them out? I bet they had way more than $2,000.

in their accounts when we handed over Trillions of dollars to them. I guess it's only people we asset test. But wait, the dancing supremes declared corporations are people too. Seems to me our government is discriminating against real people.

[Trillo]

7. +99

[boppers]

112. We asset tested the *banks* before we bailed them out, yes.

That was the reason for the bailout.... many were effectively bankrupt, but to publicize that would have crashed the whole banking system. We've since modified the rules, to require them to keep more cash on hand, but they were shockingly over-leveraged.

In short, they claimed to have millions to the public, but in private, it turns out that they had huge amounts of debt, and no cash to keep afloat.

[sadbear]

8. To get benefits, the poor have to sell the rest of their stuff...

to the rich and middle class, and for cheap, too.

[graywarrior]

9. Get your tin cans and start choosing your begging corners.

[JPZenger]

11. Way too low

This number is way too low a limit - particularly for a person who suddenly becomes unemployed. Everyone needs some emergency money - the inability to pay for a car repair often knocks people out of a job. The inability to pay for a medical bill often knocks people into bankruptcy.

Even if they have some assets, they may not be easily sold.

The state has already eliminated much of the staff who handles public assistance, and they are overwhelmed handling the state's requirements that people have to be re-qualified for medical assistance. Now, they have to spend all of their time counting up a few small bank accounts and the value of someone's car.

[Kolesar]

12. My brother became disabled with a broken shoulder and all he got was food stamps

It was only half a year. PA would have penalized him if he had any savings.

[RobinA]

43. PA Penalizes Savings

in more ways than this. It is practically impossible to save money while on benefits - aside from the fact that the benefits are so small there's nothing left to save. The system is set up, purposely or not, so that you cannot save your way out of the system. Actually, you can't really work your way out of the system either, because the minute you start making the least little bit of money, good-bye benefits. You've either got to save the money under the table or win the lottery, I guess.

[Confusious]

80. Maybe a time delay?

Have to make over a certain amount (A good amount above poverty wages) for a certain amount of time (A year or more) before they take the stamps away?

[harun]

38. Agree, horribly low. Most people here in the North East need that much in their account just to be

able to pay their bills for the month.

Not to mention, if someone is cheating the system do they think they will simply not use a bank, or do work that pays cash and not deposit it?

This seems like it is done just to win political points with their core constituency who believes the myth that all their tax dollars buy food for lazy people. It does nothing to improve the system.

[Alcibiades]

65. That's what I thought, too

I had thought perhaps there had been a couple of cases of folks who had a lot of wealth but very little income who might be abusing the system. But $2,000? If you're thrifty, you could reach that accidentally.

[sarcasmo]

14. I am afraid this country is beyond repair.

[tomg]

31. I have been thinking the

same thing more and more of late.

[LarryNM]

90. +1,000 n/t

[snappyturtle]

100. Me too. nt

[cutlassmama]

111. Me three. n/t

[Atman]

15. The rich people just HATE anyone in need of help actually getting help.

They'd never think of selling their third home if times got hard...they'd hire a lawyer to find a shelter to protect their asset. But if you can't afford the help, then FUCK YOU. You're on your own.

.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. I have experience in 3 states, and they ALWAYS count cash and cars..

You have to declare any cash you have, vehicles (usually only one allowed) and you have to tell about any other assets. So why does this article say it's 'bucking a trend'? granted, I've not used the system for over 10 years, but I don't think it's changed that much ...

[EC]

21. Yes, I believe in some states it has.

I'm in WI and years ago they did count assets. Now they don't, just income and expenses.

[jwirr]

49. So you can own three+ houses and still get food stamps? While I agree that the asset limit should

be higher I do not see the problem with means testing users. And I have absolute proof in my family that you can get off welfare even with this testing.

People are forgetting that a lot of people using food stamps are also eligible for medical assistance, cash and other programs.

[EC]

51. Well, they didn't ask how many homes.

Just what my earning were and expenses (rent, mortgage, utilities, taxes and insurance), I can't recall that anything else was even counted.

[JPZenger]

71. Most states removed asset limits because so many newly unemployed

There are many people who become suddenly unemployed. States were so overwhelmed with formerly middle class applicants who needed immediate assistance that most states removed asset limits in recent years, according to the Phila. Inquirer article.

Yes, there should be asset limits to address the rare person with the million dollar house or the recent lottery winnings. But $2,000 is a pittance. You have to become one step away from being homeless before you can get FEDERAL food stamp money.

The ironic thing is: this will actually cost Pa. taxpayers more. The state is mainly responsible for the administrative costs, while the feds pay for the actual food assistance. So, the state will increase their administrative costs to check out a few dollars here and there.

If the state wants to really reduce costs, hire some aggressive fraud investigators.

[PRETZEL]

74. That's very true

CAO's have been hit pretty hard by this administration. Add to that the 3% freeze that Corbett announced the other day and it'll now be even worse.

Friend of mine's wife is a CAO caseworker. They're basically under a hiring freeze and any promotion is at the same pay rate as they were already making. They're not happy campers.

[jwirr]

77. That is true. I was thinking that all of a sudden we drop the means tests for assets when the

middle class is in trouble. Just for what it is worth - those of us who were long term poor have been living with this from the beginning and no one wanted to change it.

Don't get me wrong I am all for helping the middle class who are suffering in this mess - but find it ironic that so many thought we needed to be held down from the beginning.

[pnwmom]

79. Assets could include furniture and other household goods. Should a person have to sell their

bedroom suite or their dining room furniture in order to qualify for temporary help with food stamps?

[boppers]

114. Speaking as somebody who was homeless, and lived out of a car for a year:

"bedroom suite or their dining room furniture" both sounded like luxuries to me, back then.

That being said, I cleaned up quite nicely in my later 20's, to the point where between the husbandwife and I, we have 3 bedroom sets, two dining sets, 5 sets of heirloom china, (etc. etc.) and I give away furniture to friends in need.... and it would be insane for me to give the parents of my godsons a dining room set, only to have it declared as "wealth" of some kind...

Unless, of course, somebody was being clever, and doing things like turning hundreds of thousands of cash assets into gold serving utensils, and then complaining that "they have no wealth", because "all they own is kitchen utensils".

[pnwmom]

117. A dining room isn't a luxury in a little house with no eating space in the kitchen.

It's just where people eat.

I agree, the words "set" and "suite" had different connotations than I'd intended. But it wouldn't take much in the way of household goods to add up to $2,000 -- and that wouldn't include any appliances, cash or other assets.

[PRETZEL]

17. We've been discussing alot of these changes for a while

I work for a AAA and we've been talking about how not only this change but many of the other changes the Corbett Administration and DPW have been imposing lately.

[onehandle]

19. Just process the poor and unemployed into Soylent Green.

Cut to the chase, you monsters.

[EC]

20. I don't think that will eliminate too many from

the rolls now. I'm guessing here, but I'm thinking most people that apply for food stamps have already spent all their savings etc. or they wouldn't have applied. It's a stigma for many of us to swallow our pride and go and apply.

[Klukie]

22. Thats fine....

get everyone good and hungry and continue to strip away any dignity that they may have left and see what happens. No decent paying jobs..reduction in assistance...cutting off unemployment...I foresee the Occupy movement gaining huge strength in the months to come. Assholes!

[Jkid]

23. This is the same amount that social security limits for SSI

This prohibits people from actually saving money for an emergency and forces people to be dependent on government. Want to know why people usually stick by SSI rather than finding a job that may pay less than what SSI gives them per month? Because it's more stable.

[Odin2005]

95. Or we save the money under the table.

[shraby]

24. I thought there always has been an asset test. That's nothing new.

At one time, you could only have your house, one car and have to show your savings book (and your childrens if they had one) and your check book balance in order to qualify for food stamps or welfare.

[Nikia]

25. This is how it is in Wisconsin too

I know a couple people who had money in the bank for anticipated large bill(s) in the near future who were told that they would have to wait until that payment happened and had no money in order to recieve assistance. In cases where they were not able to make that payment in advanced though, they ended up without enough money to make that payment and either ended up not getting what they needed or in debt, complete with accumulating interest.

[JJW]

26. Not to worry ...

the banksters will loan you money with 31% interest to buy food.

[maggiesfarmer]

27. I don't know where the limits should be set, but I'm OK with this idea in principle.

let me tell a story from my personal experience. generally, I don't like doing this because we discuss issues of national policy on this board and I don't think decisions of national policy should be based on anecdotes that relate the experience of a very small sample set. However, it applies so here goes.

I used to manage a fast food restaurant. I had one employee, let's call her Mary, who was an exceptionally bright woman and very capable at her job. Most of my time working with Mary (over 6 years) she was at an entry level, hourly management position (~$7/hour to $8/hour in 1999 to 2005) time frame. Mary was also on food stamps, ADC and lived in an state run rental-assistance apartment. Despite being an outstanding employee, Mary was limited in the number of hours she could work in a given week (I think it was 32). The issue was that if she worked more hours, she'd lose some of her benefits so her solution was to take the benefits in lieu of expanding her employment income (a related but separate issue).

Mary also drove a late model Lincoln Towncar, wore expensive clothes (compared to mine) and had kids who always had the newest video game systems. Mary and I had a discussion once around a pair of shoes she purchased for $125. I'll never forget her making the comment "this is what I choose to spend my money on." I have never in my life paid over $100 for an article of clothing (I think I did once for a tailor fit suit, however). I couldn't imagine the ethical system that leads someone to believe it's "OK" for them to buy $125 shoes and the latest video game systems but also thinks they deserve

Hopefully, Mary is the exception and not the rule. my point is, I have little issue with preventing the Marys of the world from abusing the system.

[KamaAina]

28. That's called "fraud"

and it ought to be dealt with directly, not be impoverishing every recipient in advance.

[jwirr]

53. No it is not fraud. Nothing in the programs say that you have to work enough hours a week to get

off the program. She had just learned to play the system. And it happens often. Family in our community was getting food stamps, weatherization was fixing their home up and she was bragging about all the stuff they were getting from the government. When they were investigated (community did not like her bragging) they were hiding income - that is fraud.

In order to discover who is committing fraud - the government has to have guidelines such as the ones in the post to see who is really in need.

[Orrex]

82. She wasn't worried about her hours; she was worried about her income

If her income grows by more than $100 in a month then she loses benefits, the aggregate loss of which might easily exceed the amount of income gained. And she probably wasn't getting much actual income, because the cash welfare benefit is an insulting pittance. She was probably getting food stamps and perhaps subsidized housing and/or utilities. Good luck to her, I say.

Also, hiding income is nothing at all like hiding savings. Even to mention income in the context of a savings cap is either to fail to understand the situation or else attempt to equivocate so that legitimate, bare minimum savings are equated, in principle, with massive fraud.

I don't doubt that she was as smart the poster suggests. She was clearly smart enough to take advantage--on a much smaller scale--of the kind of loophole exploited a billion times over by corporations of every size.

In order to discover who is committing fraud - the government has to have guidelines such as the ones in the post to see who is really in need.

Bullshit. Everyone has heard of these "welfare queens," and the extra $100 that she skimmed from the system each month is an infinitesimal fraction of the fraud perpetrated by corporations and wealthy tax evaders--the real welfare queens.

If someone can get an extra $100 dollars per month by hiding $300 in income, let them do it. The gross dollar amount that she takes in will be insignificant, compared to the billions funneled into corporate welfare.

This is an election year gimmick intended to play upon society's disdain for the poor. Corbett is an asshole many times over, and this is simply further proof of it.

[jwirr]

89. That is not fraud. When working with special ed clients who have jobs we always monitor their income

so they do not lose their medical assistance.

[Orrex]

97. I concur--it isn't fraud. It's making a wise use of a public service

As I've mentioned elsewhere, any corporation in the country would happily snap up every subsidy it can snag in its filthy claws, so I absolutely don't object--not in principle nor in fact--to low income people who manage to maximize their use of public assistance.

[cap]

33. I was poor going to school but every once in a while

I splurged and this is how I did it. I liked having a nice meal with my boyfriend on a Friday night and by nice means a chicken pork chop or meatloaf dinner. Every once in a great while, we had a steak or pot roast. How did I do it? I made a budget for the week and if I had to, I ate ramen during the week. Period. And I do mean nothing else. If someone saw me in the store one week buying my steak, they might think I was living high on the hog.

If Mary had a late model Lincoln, it was a gift or something she had from a previous life. No bank would lend her the money for that car based on a $240/week income. I doubt that she paid for it in cash.

I went through 4 years of college wearing 5 pairs of jeans and 5 shirts and 5 sweaters. That's it. For senior prom and graduation, I spent over $100 on a dress and shoes for each event. If you saw those purchases without knowing where I cut back you might accuse me of living high on the hog.

As far as ADC goes, it's not much and is time limited for 5-6 years. Her LIFETIME allotment of ADC has been used up. No matter what happens to her in life she can not fall back on it. Done Gone. She will be on the streets begging from here on out.

[maggiesfarmer]

36. acutally...

Mary was a drug dealer, and I'm pretty sure did pay cash for the Lincoln. I'm not sure when her ADC ran out but I do know that she became a grandmother while working for me and I'm almost certain her daughter started receiving ADC immediately. I actually heard Mary express once that the daughter getting pregnant before turning 18 was the best way to make the girl got the most state assistance.

not everyone is like Mary, some are much more deserving. so I think it makes sense to have a few checkpoints to vet eligiblity.

[Gormy Cuss]

44. See KamaAina's comment above.

It's called fraud and anyone who lies on an application can be subject to penalty. When fraud is detected at a minimum the person is required to pay back every cent in benefits but the penalties can include arrest with the potential for jail time.

Many times the only way the fraud is detected is through third party reporting. You had the opportunity to report "Mary" for investigation. Did you?

[maggiesfarmer]

60. no, I didn't report her to the police.

it never occured to me to do so. interesting point you raise, however. Mary was really valuable as a manager and I respected her work over a number of years. I wasn't aware of the details of her situation until we had been working together for quite a while.

It's an interesting question, however: if I were in the same situation now and knew of this going on, would I report it? truthfully, probably not but you have me asking myself some interesting questions...

[Odin2005]

96. I'm calling BS on this story of yours, it sounds exactly like a wingnut stereotype.

[rubberducky]

39. I think you made a wrong turn somewhere, you seem to have turned left, when you meant to turn right.

This sounds like rayguns welfare queens argument. Shame, shame, shame for contributing to the right`s arguments here on Democratic Underground.

[maggiesfarmer]

40. you're shaming me for being a democrat in favor of vetting food stamp applicants?

I stated repeatedly that I didn't believe Mary was the rule, rather the exception. I do believe she was committing fraud (whether moral or legal) and that's not cool.

I guess I'm going to have to look for the OpenMindedUnderground message board. I didn't realize only the extreme leftist views were welcome here.

[rubberducky]

41. Then why post something so inflammatory?

I would think that we all know of rip-off artists in many areas. In my opinion the biggest welfare queens live and work on wall street.

[jwirr]

58. Inflamitory? If there are no guidelines for these programs the banksters would be on them. I am

means tested continually. You do not see me complaining. There is not enough money in these programs to let everyone on them.

Years ago farmers used to give their farms to their children so they could be eligible for Medicaid when they went into the nursing home. I know people who owned million dollar farms who lived for years in the nursing home. Today the children have to buy the farm and pay a monthly payment to the nursing home.

I am sorry I do not see how this is some thing that hurts.

[maggiesfarmer]

59. the whole thread is over whether or not it's OK to have a vetting process for food stamp recipients.

I was presenting a case that would seem to justify such a process, not trying to be inflammatory.

on the other hand, if the story bothers you, I think that's good -- it should. the more "Mary's" of the world that are out there, the tougher the polictical battle to get funds to those who truly need it. I don't object to a system that makes some attempt to distinguish the 'needy' from the 'greedy'. by all means, let's monitor the system and try to ensure it's being applied uniformly and the limits are set reasonably but that's a different issue.

[rubberducky]

106. Perhaps, I should have explained my reasoning better.

You see many people only need assistance for a little while and I don`t believe they should be stripped of all thier worldly possesions while they are getting thier life together. I was in that position 30 years ago, My husband left my son and I. I had a nice home and a new car, but no money. My whole world had been turned upside down and my mind was overworked with questions about what do I do now. I felt like a beggar when I finally had to apply for assistence, but I did what I had to do. The state also set me up in little job traing program. I manged to get a job withina year and off of all help. I thank God that they didn`t let me fall into the pit of not having ANYTHING in order to apply. I at least had a reliable car to get me to classes and then to work.

[RobinA]

45. Based On My 11 Years

of working in "the system," I'm going to hazard a guess that Mary had money coming in from somewhere else under the table and it didn't show up on any asset test. One cannot, NOT, buy a Lincoln Town Car on welfare, even 32 hours of work at McDonalds and welfare. Also, there was no ADC in 1999.

[maggiesfarmer]

57. you're correct and reinforcing my point, Mary was getting funds elsewhere and this should've

disqualfied her for some of the other support she was getting.

You're also right, in 1997 ADC was replaced by TANF -- but the name stuck (at least in the area of Virginia where I was)

[Nikia]

63. If she was a drug dealer

She probably had her money in cash at home. She was already lying about not having extra income. She probably wouldn't have reported the cash. All that would have changed might be a cheaper car.

[Puzzledtraveller]

29. these tests were defacto only until recenty

Pennsylvania is only going back to what most programs were doing and only until recently was the trend to remove the asset test. It is the same rule, or lack of the rule that allowed the lottery winner to still receive SNAP benefits. 3 years SNAP and going specialist.

[JPZenger]

37. the issue is the low amount of the asset requirement

The issue is not that Pa. is instituting an asset test. It is that the limit is so ridiculously low that it doesn't take into the necessity of a 2 cars in many locations and the need to have an emergency fund.

[Puzzledtraveller]

52. I totally agree

The intent of the program is mostly misunderstood. It is not intended to replace a food budget, or alleviate the burden on a family's or individuals budget. It has in many case done just that. Which we believe is good, and rightly so, but it is not written into the program to do that.

[maggiesfarmer]

61. 'the necessity of 2 cars'?

really? I've lived in four states and never owned more than one car.

[Nikia]

64. Were you married?

Did you live in a rural area? One spouse might have a low wage job, while the other is looking for work. That might be difficult without a second car.

[maggiesfarmer]

102. whether married or not is not relevant unless I'm missing something

the poster I'm responding to mentioned the "necessity of having two cars." there was no stated or implied assumption that the poster was referring to a married couple in this instance -- the OP referred to the policies around a person [singular] owning a car, not a married couple.

but in answer to your and WW's questions, my wife and I do own two cars now, but shared a single car for 5 years of our marriage. We did not live in a very rural area and I was able to get by using a bicycle and public transportation most of the time.

[Nikia]

105. The assett policy is for any family regardless of the number of adults

If the family with two adults is trying to better their situation in an area without public transportation, it might involve commutes of more than the 5-10 miles that most people would be comfortable riding bicycles. Their schedules might not permit using the same car for getting to work or other necessities like transporting children.

[maggiesfarmer]

108. that's interesting, can you provide a source?

does our current food stamp system truly provide an incentive to NOT be married? that's essentially what you're saying

[Wait Wut]

66. In can be.

In many circumstances, two cars is a necessity.

My first marriage, I worked 45 minutes north of where I lived with my husband. He worked 30+ minutes south-west. I also had to drop my son off at kindergarten, which added another 20-30 minutes to my travel time (depending on traffic...this was Chicago). In order for us to have only had one car, I would've had to leave work at about 5am, and my ex-husband would've gotten to work 1.5 hours early every day, not to mention how much gas we would've wasted. And, yes, we were both working on finding jobs/housing closer to a central point, but we both were making good money.

My car broke down once and I was without for a week. Yeah...that second car was necessary.

[ehrnst]

103. If two adults work at different locations, and there is limited public transit

or no public transit, such as in a rural area, then two cars could well be needed for them to maintain those jobs.

If you have kids, then someone needs to be available to get them from school if they are ill. I had to start driving to work when my son was in pre-school, which had a requirement that you had to pick up your child within an hour if that child got sick. I had taken public transportation to work, but off rush hour, it would have taken me longer than an hour to get to the pre-school. My husband works in a nearby suburb, and there is no way to take public transportation to get there.

In my hometown, public buses ran from 7:00 am to 5:30 pm - which was useless for people who worked nights.

[Gormy Cuss]

46. Right, it's the RETURN to an asset test which is bucking the national trend.

So a lottery winner retaining SNAP benefits is what prompted this?

eta: the $2000 threshold is ridiculously low. As the article points out that's based on a Federal floor amount set three decades ago. Using the CPI as a benchmark the $5000 asset limit used in other states is pretty close to the indexed value of $2000 in 1980.

[cap]

30. if you live in rural PA you will not be able to get to the food bank

and have a spouse who is working. If you are both trying to work or get job interviews, the schedules don't always jive.

[JJW]

32. Go figure

$ 16 trillion handed out to domestic and foreign banks with no asset tests.

PA has no tax or royalties on the gas being extracted. All the gas industry pays is permitting fees that don't cover cost of regulation or monitoring.

The Governor should be in prison.

My granny kept $ 3,000 in the bank at all times, so that she could have a dignified burial when she died, not be put in a paupers' grave.

[nineteen50]

34. How about

no subsidies for business or corporations that have assets over 5,000 and no .o25 to zero interests loans to financial institutions with assets over 5,000 and no 15% tax rate on capital gains or carried interest for those holding assets greater than 5,000. Lets try some equality of economics.

[Coyote_Bandit]

35. They already do that here

Unless you have essentially depleted your assets here (below $2,500) the only assistance you can get is (1) a small (less than $50) sales tax credit; (2) a second homestead exemption on your property taxes (if total household income is less than $20,000) and (3) a low cost cell phone.

Apparently they are too f'ing stupid to figure out that this kind of stuff penalizes those who save $$$.

It does encourage those who have the savings/resources to move on and relocate elsewhere. Those who can't or won't are left to deplete their assets.

[Yo_Mama]

42. The asset amount is too low, but

there should be an asset test. As it is now, sometimes families with 50 or 60K or even hundreds of thousands are getting food stamps.

As long as we support food stamps, it is not vicious to expect someone to spend down their own resources before using the safety net. I would be in favor of an asset more along the lines of 10-15K. It wouldn't screen out many, but those screened out should be screened out. Failing to do this really protects the wealthy while we cut social spending for the truly needy.

Most people need more savings than 2K to get along - medical copays, car repairs, home repairs, etc. Setting an asset level at 2 or 3K is kind of ridiculous and counterproductive, IMO.

[Orrex]

83. Citation, please

Where did you get your info about 50 - 60K families earning food stamps?

[Yo_Mama]

84. Sadly I know a family with net worth in the millions that applied and got them.

It's not that rare:
http://ulocal.wlwt.com/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAction?as=62688&w=223314&d=185671

Also when I was running through some of the health care bills (before ACA was finally passed), I realized there was a hole there.

I'm dying. I'm too young for SS, and I have enough assets to think applying for disability would be shameful at a time of such public need. But if I'm forced to buy insurance, I will qualify for Medicaid most years because my income is so low.

But someone like me should not be getting public assistance - I do have a lot of money saved and it should last out my lifetime, although I have very little cash most of the time, because I saw the financial crash coming and shifted into hard assets. Most days I am now not safe to drive, so I'm not working right now. There's nothing that I can reliably do - and my health care needs are very little, because there is almost no medical treatment that will benefit me. I really am not making this up, and I haven't solved my personal ethical issue, although there's a good chance I won't be around in 2014, so I'm not worrying over it that much.

But back to the point of the original post - food stamps are a necessity for many these days. But so is saving - setting an asset limit that low is just plain wrong. It forces poor families into penury, because without some savings they won't be able to do the basics, and their very insecure lives will become much more tragically insecure.

Food stamps should make the lives of families and poor people more secure, not less secure. We cannot structure our social benefit programs to torture the struggling people or to force them into such rotten choices.

A family of three would qualify for food stamps with about 2K in monthly income, so you are basically saying that they can't save more than a month's income saved? That's ridiculous. That means they have no security at all. This type of asset test converts poor working and responsible people into people who don't know whether they will have a roof over their heads in a month or two. It's outrageous. Anyone who has ever lived on very little knows that your car is not that reliable, and at any moment that might be an unexpected expense. If you have medical needs, then you have money set aside for medicines. How does such a family set money aside for heating expenses in cold areas, especially now that LIHEAP has been cut so much? What are they supposed to do - charge it on their non-existent credit cards?

This is outrageous and inhumane.

[boppers]

115. "That means they have no security at all."

Exactly. The program is for people who have no security, not people who want to avoid touching their security. As soon as their savings and assets get scary-low, the benefit kicks in.

[jwirr]

47. I am pretty sure that my state has had this kind of asset test for many years. We cannot have

retirement plans but we are allowed burial plans. There has to be some limitations on this program - after all romney says he is unemployed. If he could prove he had no income and assets were exempt he would be eligible for food stamps. I realize he is a bad example but that is the situation that we are dealing with when it comes to some of these programs.

Years ago our area had a commodities handout about once a month. The rich were in line just like the poor. They did not get rich by refusing a handout. Just look at our banksters.

[caseymoz]

88. Yeah, some limit.

Of course, Romney might qualify without asset limits, but $200 is too small for him even to notice. If the rich you saw were going out of the way for under $100, they weren't rich by today's standards. Either that, or they were rich and insane enough to lose their riches to the Nigerian Email scam. No way, shape or form, Romney spends an hour of his time for just $200.

I can't see that food assistance should be denied initially due to assets since food is dependent on cash flow. They should warn you when you receive food stamps that they will be cut off after a while unless you liquidate some assets, but I can't see assets having nothing to do with food disqualifying you from receiving initial food aid. But I'm just a socialist.

Somehow I don't think gouging is quite the problem PA imagines. A car is an asset you need. A good reliable car can do a lot to get you a job.

[doodadem]

48. I got a nasty surprise this weekend

After my ex-husband took off with everything I owned while I was in intensive care in the hospital last year, yeah---I finally broke down and went for food stamps. They have kept me going for the past year, even at only $200 a month.

I had to go get recertified last month, and made the mistake of telling them I was getting this pittance of spousal support finally. I was recertified, and life went on.

Saturday, I drove all the way down the mountain to get groceries, and spent the usual hour or more loading up the cart and checking out. When I gave the cashier my EBT card, she said sorry--nothing in your account. It should have renewed on the 5th. I had to walk away from my groceries, and go home with nothing.

On Mon., I called the caseworker. She said the powers that be had decided I now had too much income to get assistance. Doesn't matter that ever bit of my spousal support goes to pay bills. I said obviously I should have never told you about finally getting this support. She said, that would be fraud. I said I don't care.

So the lesson here is not to be honest. You get screwed every time.

[Puzzledtraveller]

56. alimony uses a net income scale

It is different than the gross income scale which is 1180.00 for a single person household. Net income scale is 908.00 for a single person household. Eventhough gross income is counted on taxable earnings, the scale is higher because taxes are paid. The net scale figures you keep and are not taxed on your alimony.

[RobinA]

68. They'd Find It

and then you would have to pay them back. The only time fraud like this would work is if you were getting cash.

[Historic NY]

50. Savings, the little people have means the difference...

in tiding them over from time to time....2000.00 wouldn't even pay the taxes on my 2bdr ranch house. Thankfully I don't need food stamps but they do make the world of diffenence. I'm really beginning to think the let'em die scheme is taking over. I wonder if they count a yard full of junk cars in their assessment.

[LynneSin]

54. Another fine job by Gov Tom "I take money from known pedophiles" Corbett the Fracker

He's ruining Pennsylvania

[PA Democrat]

62. Saving for property taxes would put most people over the $2,000 limit

Should people stash money under their mattresses?

[MadrasT]

67. I know...

...this is a HORRIBLE development.

I am not sure how I feel about "asset testing", but $2000 is WAY TOO LOW under any circumstance!

[RobinA]

70. Yes

That's what I would do in this position. I've seen old ladies with some meager savings forced to spend it down to qualify for enough to live on. A lot won't do it because they are of the "save at all costs" generation. Grandma ends up 90 years old with $5,000 left that Grandpa left her and told her never to spend except in an emergency. No benefits unless she blows it on stuff she doesn't want. It's the only thing she has in this world and that's standing between her and destitution. So she either clings to it and depends on the kindness of strangers or she blows it so she qualifies and some Repub comes along and says, "Sorry Grandma, your benefits are cut, you should have been more responsible."

[JPZenger]

72. After the sheriff's sale, you can get some food stamps

the corbett administration is doing everything they can to starve inner city public schools of funding. So, they would be happy if people can't pay their school taxes.

[MarkCharles]

69. Republicans would be just as happy if half the population starved to death!

Two car families will die off first!

[JPZenger]

73. Welcome to Pennsylvania: Home of Tax-Free Fracking

Pa. remains the only state with a natural gas industry that does not charge an extraction tax. The GOP-controlled legislature is proposing only a 1% fee, and that wouldn't even go to the state. If the legislature had enacted a reasonable 5% tax 3 years ago, PA. wouldn't have to slash funding to its public schools and turn food stamp recipients upside down to get their pocket change.

Also, Pa loses a fortune every year because our legislature refuses to close the Amazon loophole on sales tax and the Delaware loophole on corporate income tax. Other states have successfully closed those loopholes.

[JPZenger]

75. Good new article on this topic from Phila. Tribune writer

http://www.newpittsburghcourieronline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6222:proposed-change-in-eligibility-rules-endangers-food-stamps-for-170000-pennsylvanians&catid=39:national&Itemid=2

Excerpts:

"John Manton is struggling to hang on unemployed, without health insurance, worried about keeping his home. He’s now also concerned that proposed changes to eligibility requirements for food stamps will leave him worried about something else: putting food on the table. He receives about $37 a week in food stamps toward food bills that average about $51 a week. That assistance would vanish for Manton and about 170,000 other Pennsylvanians under a proposed change in rules that would require food stamp recipients to pass an asset test. Under the proposal, seniors and individuals on disability would lose their benefits if they have assets valued at $3,000 or more, excluding their primary residence and personal property. For everyone else, the cut-off would be $2,000.

“I have about $3,000 in the bank,” he said, noting that he was keeping the money for emergencies and large expenses. “Twenty-five hundred dollars is earmarked for the new real estate tax plus I owe another $835 for the homeowners insurance.” Unemployed since April, Manton lives on $195 a week in unemployment benefits. His last day on the job at a legal services company, a position he had for more than three years, was April 29. He’s been looking for work ever since.

He feels he needs to hang on to a little bit of money. “What people have in the bank is all they have in the bank and $3,000 is not a lot of money,” he said. “If you go the hospital for some emergency, they want $385 for the ER plus the doctor’s fee, plus the tests, plus whatever else they do to you. So, you’re talking $900 right there just to go to the hospital. Suppose your pipes burst? You have to have a little bit of money to fall back on.” But, that little nest egg would bar him from getting food stamps if the new rules are approved.

The change could be put in place as early as March. The department has the authority needed to make the changes without approval from the state legislature. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food stamp program, does need to sign off on the plan, something Horstmann said she expected to happen."

-----
Part of the problem is that our Governor and legislature gave the Secretary of Public Welfare complete authority to make any changes he wants without any other state approval, as long as it saves money.

[Canuckistanian]

78. What a boneheaded move that will INCREASE dependence on social services

By making people spend their hard earned savings, their retirement money will be GONE, forcing them to depend EVEN MORE on SS, foodstamps and Medicaid/Medicare in their old age.

Whoever thought up this gem has ZERO understanding of economics, statistics or demographics.

[MarkCharles]

81. Actually, this $2000 resource limit was in effect in Mass...in....

1975!!! When I lived on $400 a month in salary!

$2000 seemed like a dream to me then, it would have been 5 months of living without a job.

Now, try living on $2000 a month. I cannot.

I spend more than that on mortgage, electric and gas and food in one month, not counting groceries, car, insurance, TV/phone/Internet, etc etc.

$2000 a month, about the bottom line for middle class families for cost of living these days, and lower middle class for many single Americans' expenses in a month, even in PA.

[Yo_Mama]

85. Yes, that seems to be it

States that are returning to the old standards aren't factoring in inflation, and frankly higher taxes. There are a lot of older persons living on small incomes that have to save for utilities/heating/property taxes, and if you are the working poor, the need to save is generally even higher.

Of course, if you do just stuff the money under your mattress you'll qualify, but forcing people to lie in order to eat is brutal and uncivilized.

[MarkCharles]

93. $107 a week, 1973, $428 a month.. I lived well

went to work 5-6 days a week, went to $2 lunch, $4 with a beer or two on Friday.

Rent: $75 a month

Electric" $15-$20 a month

Gas: $35 in winter, $10 in summer

Gasoline: $.99 a gallon, top price

Filled my Volkswagon for $5-9 each week, topping off.

[Yo_Mama]

109. I feel sorry for younger people

They don't even know what life in the US used to be like.

[BiggJawn]

86. Back in 1982 when I lost my factory job.

Factory jobs... Remember those? Anyway, I was told I could not get food stamps because I owned both a car and a motorcycle. I was supposed to sell one and come back when I had eaten all that money...

[caseymoz]

87. You have to eat your 2002 Toyota Corolla to qualify for food stamps?

This is the old Republican complain: "The poor just aren't pathetic enough. Too many have refrigerators and TV's. They haven't lost everything, yet."

I'm curious if Repubs fantasize that they'll be more humane as soon as the 99 percent are living in mud huts and eating newspaper from landfills. Obviously, GOP just need more time to accomplish this; they're working hard on it. Somehow, I doubt the poor will qualify for help even then. I think the wealthy will just impose caste system and write us off as subhuman.

So, is PA ready to see people starve due to this decision?

And what will PA do then? Does the legislature have a "safety-net" of their own, a contingency plan, in case their suspicions about gougers are proved paranoid and their faith in free market wildly exaggerated, and so they starve people instead of motivating them?

The limit on the car value is baffling. What of a person with a $5,000 car? Are you supposed to certify that you ate it first to qualify for real food? Would PA want the owner to sell it or trade down to a less reliable car, thus decreasing their chances of getting a job? That car could be the one advantage that they have that digs them out. And after the person sells the car at a cut-rate, since the states obvious presumption is that they'll be buying food with the proceeds, would PA give them food stamps for a longer, or perhaps indefinite period since they crippled the family's ability to have a breadwinner, or even travel for necessities?

And what does the car somebody bought two years prior to going poor have to do with it? If a person is in trouble, it should be good that they still have some advantage, some to help dig them out, or help them deal.

For people who hate communism, this is the most irresponsible excuse for creating a famine since Josef Stalin's.

[DonCoquixote]

91. and this is why

I distrusted Pennsylvania liberals, because, like Florida, they are all concerned with trying to act like they are from old Dixie. Even Mississippi would not be this brazen.

[CoffeeCat]

98. What if you become unemployed? IDIOTS!!

Iowa has a law like this. You can't get food stamps just for having NO INCOME! I mean, PLEASE--we must
make it as difficult as possible for people with NO INCOME to feed themselves and their children!

Iowa also has caps on the amount that you can have in savings and assets. The threshold was pretty low.

What gets me--is that my husband lost his job and our household was without an income. Our savings was
the only thing we had between us and the street. We had no income--shouldn't we have been able to get
food stamps? You can't under Iowa laws and now under these PA laws.

It really is disgraceful.

They are making it more and more difficult to qualify for these programs---which amounts to CUTS!!!

That's exactly what this is---CUTS in entitlement programs--and it's happening all over.

[blue neen]

99. If you live in PA and don't have any food, you can always devour fracking chemicals.

They must be delicious--Tom Corbett and the Gas Companies are quite busy finding ways to stuff them down our throats.

"You can get any chemical you want
At Tom Corbett's Restaurant"...

[coalition_unwilling]

101. So Pennsylvania will let children go hungry if their parents have more than

$2,000 in 'savings and other assets"????

Why does Pennsylvania HATE CHILDREN????????

WTF????????????????

[JPZenger]

104. Remember many people are not eligible for unemployment

There are millions of people who work but are not eligible for unemployment insurance if they are laid off. The lay off may occur suddenly. These people would have no income, but they have to fall within a few steps of becoming homeless before they can get food aid.

This is a complete change. The food aid was always the easiest government benefit to obtain because it was the humanitarian thing to do. If a person has serious problems, they go to a social worker or a human service agency, and the person says: I can't get you cash assistance, there is a long waiting list for housing assistance, there is too much delay in getting your disability claim processed, but at least I can make sure you don't starve."

Now, they starve, and have to choose between their medicines and their food.

Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism.

And worst off - it won't even save PA. money. The food aid is from the Feds, the state will have HIGHER administrative costs to turn poor people upside down to check for change in their pockets.

[Gringostan]

107. I just don’t understand

I just don’t understand why a country hates its own people?

[Courtesy Flush]

110. This was how it was in my day

I didn't know it had changed. 20+ years ago I was an eligibility worker, and people were not eligible if they had excessive assets.

I think you guys might be assuming that they're counting the value of the family's clothing, furniture, etc. It wasn't like that. We used to count things like vehicles, real estate, and cash.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this does not seem like a change. Food stamps are for the poor.

[HiPointDem]

119. yes, & $2000 in assets - 1 shitty used car. if you have an unshitty used car you're sol, you have

to sell it to eat, i guess.

'excessive assets' my ass.

[boppers]

116. One word: Bling.

Discuss.