Mississippi has new SNAP law

[FaxModem1]

AZ Family

New SNAP work requirement results in more volunteers

Posted: Mar 28, 2016 4:57 PM PDT
Updated: Mar 29, 2016 3:54 AM PDT
By Victor Williams, ReporterCONNECT

A new policy will take effect March 30th requiring SNAP recipients to work or volunteer at least 20 hours a week. Some started volunteering this week at Feed My Sheep in Gulfport to meet the requirement. (Photo source: WLOX News)
A new policy will take effect March 30th requiring SNAP recipients to work or volunteer at least 20 hours a week. Some started volunteering this week at Feed My Sheep in Gulfport to meet the requirement. (Photo source: WLOX News)
GULFPORT, MS -
A new policy will take effect March 30th requiring SNAP recipients to work or volunteer at least 20 hours a week. With these recent changes, some of those receiving benefits are working to make sure they don't lose them.

"I'm working here as part of the SNAP program. For doing 40 hours a month in exchange for keeping my food stamps," said volunteer Percy Fayard.

Monday was Fayard's first day volunteering at Feed My Sheep in Gulfport.

"I'm in a current state of job search and I'm trying to make sure that I can still at least afford to live," he said.

Fayard said even though the work is hard, he doesn't mind putting in long hours in order to keep his benefits.

"I'm not as much focused on consequences of a politician's decision or a policy change," said Fayard. "I'm more focused on my reality and my stance right now, and I'm actually just trying to get by day to day."

Other volunteers also started in hopes of keeping their benefits, while at the same time enjoying having a job to do.

"Really, it's more of a job opportunity to help you get out into the job world, and being up here helps you out a lot," said volunteer Sharon House.

"As tough as it may be, if I've got to do it, I can't let anything stop me or get in my way. I have goals, I have dreams, it's life," said Percy.

Those with questions pertaining to this new policy are asked to contact their local Department of Human Services office.

Copyright 2016 WLOX. All rights reserved.

So, if you don't make 40 hours a week in volunteering, you don't eat. However, Conservatives love this new policy:

Conservative Tribune

Mississippi Forces Welfare Users to Actually WORK for Food Stamps… With Dramatic Results
Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print
Advertisement - story continues below
Support Casa LA
A new Mississippi policy requiring that food stamp recipients find work or volunteer to maintain their benefits went into effect on Wednesday and brought with it some rather surprising results.

Mississippi Gulf Coast news station WLOX reported that the policy requiring that recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work or volunteer 20 hours per week inspired a number of residents in the city of Gulfport to get off their butts and actually put in some effort.

“I’m working here as part of the SNAP program,” said Percy Fayard, who started volunteering at Feed My Sheep this Monday. In a rather ironic twist, the company he chose to volunteer happens to be a faith-based organization that provides food to the homeless.

Another volunteer, Sharon House, expressed a similar sentiment.


“Really, it’s more of a job opportunity to help you get out into the job world, and being up here helps you out a lot,” she said. “As tough as it may be, if I’ve got to do it, I can’t let anything stop me or get in my way. I have goals, I have dreams, it’s life.”

These SNAP recipients deserve a lot of praise for their positive response to Mississippi’s new policy, though judging by the attitude typically maintained by welfare users, we realistically expect most of the state’s SNAP recipients to respond in an entirely different way.

Plus, when Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, enacted a similar rule in his state, 78 percent of welfare recipients in his state eventually dropped out of the program instead of simply rolling up their sleeves and putting in some hard work.

Perhaps the situation might wind up being different in Mississippi, but we will have to wait to find out.

H/T Breitbart

Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about Mississippi’s new rule that forces welfare users to work for food stamps!

Huzzah, we learned that if people have to work 40 hours just to eat, they'll look for a better deal. What a revelation.

[Simon_Jester]

Note that both articles cite and quote the same two people. I'm effectively treating them as one article. Also...

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/av ... -benefits/

Note that the article DOESN'T mention an important fact:

Mississippi's average per-person SNAP benefits are around $115. So, in essence, the average welfare recipient is being told to work twenty hours a month for 115 dollars worth of compensation, an average salary of $5.75 an hour, well below the federal minimum wage. And I heard the number 'forty' in there somewhere- that would correspond to working for $2.87 an hour.

And their expenses in traveling to whatever site this work happens at are most likely not covered. Mississippi is a largely rural state; long driving distances are a likely reality. If I have to drive ten miles each way to get to work, that's two or three dollars spent on gas per day. Multiply by five days of this make-work, and we're talking ten percent or more of my total 'pay' (the SNAP benefits). That's before we count maintenance for a car or anything else. Bus or subway fare, likewise, costs.

So I can easily see this situation forcing Mississippi food stamp recipients actively losing money by continuing to receive food stamps- they get $115 in subsidized food for themselves, while spending dozens of dollars a month on direct expenses associated with just physically showing up at work.

Moreover, the SNAP recipients sacrifice 20-40 hours of their time each month. Time which could be spent looking for work. Or which could be spent actually working, since quite a few people on food stamps are at least somewhat employed. Babysitting kids for desperately overworked single parents. Or, oh, I know! Panhandling! I suspect panhandling pays better per hour than this program! Or mugging people in the street for bread money- much less work, and probably cheaper to commute to work!

[sighs]

This entire program is based on a colossally ignorant stereotype of 'lazy indolent welfare queens' who sit back on the couch and eat up a thousand dollars apiece. And which bears no resemblance to the realities of the American poor.

I would bet the only people who stay on the program are those who have enough children and dependents to feed that it's at least slightly economical for them to do so (does Mississippi require child labor to pay the SNAP expenses of the children? At this point I wouldn't be shocked to hear it). The people leaving the program aren't too lazy, they're disabled, mentally ill, or have made a calculated decision that being a panhandler or a thief is a more cost-effective way to get $115 a month than working 20-40 hours a week for whoever the State of Mississippi wants them to work for.

[Zaune]

Well, at least they're not being made to do "work placements" at actual businesses. Yet.

[Lord Revan]

As I've said before these laws seem custom built to make sure there's a large population of habitual criminals (because they have no other choice to survive) so that conservative politicians can be "though on crime" by arresting said criminals without actually reducing crime at all, probably combinied with "good" old fasioned racism they can't throw black people in jail for being black so they make sure that there's enough criminals that can throw blacks into jail when they feel like it.

[Broomstick]

Did either of the first two posters actually read the article? FaxModem1, it's NOT 40 hours a week, it's 20. Simon Jester it's NOT 40 hours a month, it's 20 hours a week.

It also depends on how the program is implemented.

My state has had similar requirements for well over a decade now. You get 3 months of SNAP without question, after which you have to either
1) work
2) be a full time student in an accredited school,
3) prove you're a full time caretaker for child(ren) under 5, or
4) prove you're looking for work.

I've been through this system so it's not theoretical for me, I actually know how this goes. After your first 3 months you are required to show up at an office where a social worker asks you what the obstacles to work are - transportation? Does your car need to be fixed? (The state has some small grants to help people keep their vehicles running) Do you need to be introduced to the local bus system? In other words, you're not entirely on your own. They have classes/seminars to help you with interview technique, resume writing, dressing for interviews. They will help you get into training programs. They'll help you with documentation (renewing expired ID's, getting things like birth certificates, school certificates, etc. that might have been lost over the years).

If, despite everything, you still aren't working after six months they MIGHT get you into a volunteer position, where you work 10-20 hours a week in addition to looking for work (with whatever assistance you need to do that).

The result is that most able-bodied people who aren't suffering serious mental issues get work of some sort within the year. Those that are disabled can be assisted with getting official status and benefits for that, as well as treatment if needed.

Which isn't to say the situation is paradise - there are a lot of complaints I can make about it, but the point is, you aren't just told to find work or else the state is actually willing to help you. The program is why I have my current job.

So that's a key thing I'd need to know about the Mississippi situation. These articles are just puff pieces - new law, isn't it great? Let's trot a couple of unfortunates past the public to say how happy they are now and make sure they sing and dance while they work for their new massa. They don't really say jack about the program.

[Simon_Jester]

Did either of the first two posters actually read the article? FaxModem1, it's NOT 40 hours a week, it's 20. Simon Jester it's NOT 40 hours a month, it's 20 hours a week.

I beg your pardon. No, no I did not read the article, I am a flaming illiterate as you well know. I never bother to read or understand things. That's why I'm always first on the bandwagon to criticize whatever informed-by-experience comments you make in other threads, remember?



Come on, I misread 'week' as 'month.' I've done worse before, and I suspect if I go digging so have you; at least give me one reading error before you start throwing hand grenades.

However, my basic objection stands. Indeed, it stands with quadruple force- they're working eighty hours a month, not twenty, for what may be only a little over $100 in pay. At that point it becomes a virtual certainty they're losing money on transportation expenses and would actively be better off without the SNAP payment... unless they're getting some kind of transportation subsidy, which strikes me as doubtful because this is Mississippi we're talking about.

If Mississippi does offer a transportation subsidy, then I am simply wrong, having been misled by the crowing tone of the right-wing jackasses in the article.

These jackasses are proudly proclaiming that when a state 'makes welfare recipients work,' it turned out three quarters of them would rather 'be lazy' than be on welfare, and honestly, that is an accurate summary of the tone of the articles even if it's not an accurate summary of the Mississippi program.

And no, in case you decide I've been driven insane with delusions and think those are direct quotes, no, those are not direct quotes, they are a summary. An uncharitable summary.

Note the article that talks about the Maine program:

"Plus, when Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, enacted a similar rule in his state, 78 percent of welfare recipients in his state eventually dropped out of the program instead of simply rolling up their sleeves and putting in some hard work."

Things like that do tend to make me rather cranky, I will admit.

It also depends on how the program is implemented.

My state has had similar requirements for well over a decade now. You get 3 months of SNAP without question, after which you have to either
1) work
2) be a full time student in an accredited school,
3) prove you're a full time caretaker for child(ren) under 5, or
4) prove you're looking for work.

I've been through this system so it's not theoretical for me, I actually know how this goes.

As you note later, you know how it goes in your state. If another state does things differently (say, because it is trying to in effect covertly defund SNAP for political or budget reasons), they may do things differently.

Moreover, I would argue that my basic point stands- eighty hours of work a month for SNAP benefits that average $115 a month per person is ridiculous. Even twenty hours of work a month for $115 is none too impressive. Eighty is much worse.

After your first 3 months you are required to show up at an office where a social worker asks you what the obstacles to work are - transportation? Does your car need to be fixed? (The state has some small grants to help people keep their vehicles running) Do you need to be introduced to the local bus system? In other words, you're not entirely on your own. They have classes/seminars to help you with interview technique, resume writing, dressing for interviews. They will help you get into training programs. They'll help you with documentation (renewing expired ID's, getting things like birth certificates, school certificates, etc. that might have been lost over the years).

If, despite everything, you still aren't working after six months they MIGHT get you into a volunteer position, where you work 10-20 hours a week in addition to looking for work (with whatever assistance you need to do that).

The result is that most able-bodied people who aren't suffering serious mental issues get work of some sort within the year. Those that are disabled can be assisted with getting official status and benefits for that, as well as treatment if needed.

Which isn't to say the situation is paradise - there are a lot of complaints I can make about it, but the point is, you aren't just told to find work or else the state is actually willing to help you. The program is why I have my current job.

So that's a key thing I'd need to know about the Mississippi situation. These articles are just puff pieces - new law, isn't it great? Let's trot a couple of unfortunates past the public to say how happy they are now and make sure they sing and dance while they work for their new massa. They don't really say jack about the program.

These particular puff pieces take a rather asinine tone and cheerily predict that three quarters of the people now on food aid will leave the program rather than wrok.

I think my criticism of the text of the articles, and of the logic of putting people to work for grossly sub-minimum 'wage' in SNAP benefits, is merited.

[Broomstick]

My pardon if I came across too strong, my first salvo statement was intended as a correction, not a flame.

If someone has no income they're not getting the average SNAP benefit, they're getting the maximum. That's another point to be researched. Even at maximum they're probably not getting minimum wage, but then the system is supposed to provide an incentive to get paying work.

The point being, there are a LOT of details that aren't discussed here. If there isn't support to help people find actual paid jobs this really doesn't do much good.

And yes, I, too, picked up the right-wing crowing but I didn't want to side-track into a screed against that attitude right now.

[General Zod]

If I were the cynical sort I would say it sounds like Mississippi is really looking for any way to bring back dlavery that we can. When do we start hearing about state scrip?

[Broomstick]

Final thought (for now):

My state is a red state and instituted a work requirement for SNAP benefits past 3 months, but it actually was done with the intent to get people re-employed. That's why we went from an 8-9% unemployment rate a few years ago to 5% now (and most economists think 4-5% is about as good as it gets before you get into labor shortage problems). It was not instituted to punish.

This? We don't get enough detail to know.

[Flagg]

Mississippi is governed by pigs. News at 11!

[Sea Skimmer]

Did either of the first two posters actually read the article? FaxModem1, it's NOT 40 hours a week, it's 20. Simon Jester it's NOT 40 hours a month, it's 20 hours a week.

Lol, go back again. Notice that in fact it says at different points both 20 hours a week and 40 hours a month. However the 40 hours a month part is a quote of someone in the program whom probably just misspoke.

[Flagg]

I just love how they are effectively threatening to starve children (where most SNAP funds go) unless thier parents (who probably hold down a shit job with shit wages as it is) "volunteer" for picking cotton in the fields for however many hours a month. Too bad we can't just send in federal troops and remove an entire state government if they are cunts.

[Simon_Jester]

What's really troubling isn't that Mississippi is doing what you say (since we don't know what Mississippi's rules are, as Broomstick alludes to).

What's really troubling is that the very existence of opinion/fluff/pseudo-news like this... indicates there are lots of Americans who wish children were being held hostage in this way.

[Flagg]

What's really troubling isn't that Mississippi is doing what you say (since we don't know what Mississippi's rules are, as Broomstick alludes to).

What's really troubling is that the very existence of opinion/fluff/pseudo-news like this... indicates there are lots of Americans who wish children were being held hostage in this way.

It's a combination of racism (the Reagan welfare queen stereotype, which alone earns him an eternity roasting in hell, good thing for President Wormfood there isn't one), ignorance (not knowing that most SNAP benefits go to feeding the children of the working poor, and Calvanism (believing that if you're poor and starving, God wants it that way, so helping them is bad, they need to be less sinful! Though they may not realize it's Calvanistic).
Throw that in with "The Guvmint is taking mah money to spend on those filthy <insert invective here>!!!"

The worst part is that SNAP/Food Stamps are the most effective form of both welfare and economic stimulus.

[Broomstick]

What's really troubling is that the very existence of opinion/fluff/pseudo-news like this... indicates there are lots of Americans who wish children were being held hostage in this way.

I'm not convinced. I think it doesn't even occur to a lot of Americans that this affects children.

The worst part is that SNAP/Food Stamps are the most effective form of both welfare and economic stimulus.

Yep, nearly a 2 for 1 return on the money.

Also good for people like me (I no longer qualify - yay us) because SNAP is a not-insignificant part of my employer's income. Particularly good when I first started working there, as not only did it pay for the majority of our food, but it also helped support my job, too.

[Simon_Jester]

How is return on SNAP money measured, by the way?

[Flagg]

What's really troubling is that the very existence of opinion/fluff/pseudo-news like this... indicates there are lots of Americans who wish children were being held hostage in this way.

I'm not convinced. I think it doesn't even occur to a lot of Americans that this affects children.

The worst part is that SNAP/Food Stamps are the most effective form of both welfare and economic stimulus.

Yep, nearly a 2 for 1 return on the money.

Also good for people like me (I no longer qualify - yay us) because SNAP is a not-insignificant part of my employer's income. Particularly good when I first started working there, as not only did it pay for the majority of our food, but it also helped support my job, too.

Yeah, I get it, but as a male I wouldn't if I were not disabled. What pisses me off is that on the rare year that my pittance of a disability pay goes up, they subtract from my EBT (basically a food stamp card). It's like why bother getting the COLA's if they are going to fuck me on food stamps?

[Flagg]

How is return on SNAP money measured, by the way?

I'm not sure, actually. But I've always seen/read that there's a 150% to 200% return on investment mentioned for food stamps.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, but it's like... when people say that money spent on the school system has a 600% or whatever return on investment, what they mean is that for each dollar spent educating a child, that child's future economic contributions to the country increase by six dollars.

What do they mean when they say it for SNAP? Would you care to speculate?

[Vendetta]

OK, but it's like... when people say that money spent on the school system has a 600% or whatever return on investment, what they mean is that for each dollar spent educating a child, that child's future economic contributions to the country increase by six dollars.

What do they mean when they say it for SNAP? Would you care to speculate?

Presumably it's a combination of producing demand driven economic activity (stores are still paid for their stock, even if not at point of sale, and so on up the supply chain) and the fact that the sort of things food stamps are spent on are probably domestically produced items for the most part (food) so the money going up that supply chain doesn't disappear to import duties etc.

It also enables other economic activity because, as Broomstick said, receiving food stamp aid which covers essential costs can allow someone to use other direct income to support other workforce participation (eg. affording a car to be able to look for jobs further from home).

[Flagg]

Yeah, it's a direct almost instant economic thing, not a "will benefit us down the line" like education. It's pumping money directly into the economy, since the food has to be restocked, the employees need to get paid, the grocer buys it wholesale, the truck drives it to the store, the truck buys fuel getting it to the store, the truck picks it up from the wholesale warehouse, and etc. And it all goes towards food, no alcohol, no cigarettes, no toothpaste, mouthwash, or Tylenol, only "unprepared" (meaning it isn't like a whole cooked chicken at the grocery store, but it can be frozen foods) food and drink.

They are talking about even not allowing purchase of soda and sweets, which I think is bullshit. It's just another way of saying "YOU POOR! POOR MUST SUFFER!!!"

[Raw Shark]

They are talking about even not allowing purchase of soda and sweets, which I think is bullshit. It's just another way of saying "YOU POOR! POOR MUST SUFFER!!!"

I can think of motives besides general cruelty. One of the other economic benefits of the whole program is that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce, and letting people give themselves diabetes on the taxpayer dime if they want to would cost a lot of money in and of itself if they wind up on Medicare or Medicaid. On the other hand, I could see where it would be terrible for most peoples' morale (I'm not personally a sugar man anymore, but there was a time when I would've mugged an old lady for a Mountain Dew if it was the only way to get one)... Also, no toothpaste? That's just dumb. IMHO they should make a small percentage, say for example 10% of the payout, available for that sort of thing, because again, healthy society benefits all.

[Flagg]

They are talking about even not allowing purchase of soda and sweets, which I think is bullshit. It's just another way of saying "YOU POOR! POOR MUST SUFFER!!!"

I can think of motives besides general cruelty. One of the other economic benefits of the whole program is that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce, and letting people give themselves diabetes on the taxpayer dime if they want to would cost a lot of money in and of itself if they wind up on Medicare or Medicaid. On the other hand, I could see where it would be terrible for most peoples' morale (I'm not personally a sugar man anymore, but there was a time when I would've mugged an old lady for a Mountain Dew if it was the only way to get one)... Also, no toothpaste? That's just dumb. IMHO they should make a small percentage, say for example 10% of the payout, available for that sort of thing, because again, healthy society benefits all.

Yeah, but they mean, like all soda. Even diet stuff. Because poor must suffer!

[Raw Shark]

Yeah, but they mean, like all soda. Even diet stuff. Because poor must suffer!

The branded-diet stuff usually isn't exactly good for you, just less-harmful. It is almost-completely devoid of useful carbs, protein, vitamins, or minerals. Real food that you prepare yourself is almost always better. If you want to promote a productive body of disadvantaged and short-lived people in your population, it does make sense to discourage that sort of consumption, as opposed to the high-calorie / low-value kind that makes people feel full and docile (ie: sugar and sugar substitutes) if you're unwilling or unable to just give them nutritious food, but the best case scenario for your own body is almost always buying real food and preparing it yourself.

[Elheru Aran]

Diet soda is basically dirty, bad-tasting carbonated water. That's what it comes down to for me.

As for SNAP and all that bollocks. My wife was on WIC for about a year or so. You could get fresh or frozen or (some) canned fruits and veggies. Bread. Milk, eggs. That kind of thing. Not terribly impressive, but it was around $30 worth of food a month (not counting the milk cause shit was expensive). It helped. It wasn't *huge*, but it was a help.