I just saw on the news that the new "Farm Bill" that passed the U.S. House of Representatives contains a mandatory 20-hour/week work requirement for anyone who receives food stamps.
Huh.
My only experience with food stamps occurred when my first child was born and I was still in law school. I was working at the time, making approximately $15/hour. My wife, who had just given birth to a beautiful baby boy, was (understandably) not working; she had a newborn to care for. While at the hospital, a social worker visited us (as you can imagine, we were on the Healthy Indiana Plan, as spending $400/month on health insurance was not in the budget) and signed us up for food stamps; she gave us a folder with a bunch of "coupons" in it.
We tried to use them . . . once.
As it turns out, the "coupons" were only valid for specific brands and sizes, and the process of checking out at the grocery store was so arduous and embarrassing, we never used those "coupons" again. Also, as an aside, the "coupons" didn't really provide for much healthy food; to my recollection, it didn't provide for any fresh fruit or vegetables but was replete with coupons for mac n' cheese, sugary juices, etc.
Anyway, the news of this new work requirement got me "a-thinkin'" about some double standards.
First, is this work requirement ever going to apply to those who collect seasonal unemployment? I have a dear friend (self-proclaimed conservative) who works construction. He gets laid off yearly and collects unemployment every year. (I've never collected a dime of unemployment, for the record). Anyway, I wonder if he is going to have to satisfy any work requirements? Methinks probably not.
Second, as a former school teacher, I used to get "laid off" every summer; interestingly, I was never eligible for unemployment.
Why is it that construction workers, who get laid off every winter, are eligible for unemployment when they get laid off, when teachers, who get laid off every summer, aren't? Why is it that construction workers aren't required to satisfy a work requirement during the pendency of their unemployment?
It kind of puts the lie to many of the justifications for these work requirements in the first place, doesn't it?
I haven’t read the bill so I don’t know the details but my guess is that it passed to prevent people from living off of welfare. There are generations of families who live off of welfare and food stamps .
ReplyDeleteAt least if there is a work requirement the recipient is contributing positively to society and maybe by working some it will lead to gainfull full time employment? Perhaps that is the point ?
It seems it would be awfully easy for some to sit back , take handouts and live within those constraints , so maybe the work requirement is a good thing . I say for some people because , of course, it’s not desirable for most to live that way , thank goodness .
I’ve never had to apply for unemployment, hope to never have to . I have heard there’s ways around the job application requirements on that in order to extend your unemployment benefits . For some , it seems that is what they do so that they do not have to work .So I am thinking that people that want to will find the “ work around “ for this new food stamp requirement also .
I’m not sure why teachers do not get unemployment, perhaps it’s becuase before year round school calendars , teaching was considered a nine month a year profession ? Do they not give teachers the option of receiving their paycheck year round ? I had heard that .
As far as construction workers , seems to me that profession , for some , is sort of fly by night and the workers have to take the contracts or jobs how they come .