In the P-G (and the Trib too, I think) the other day was an article about PA making the amount of food stamps that people receive contingent upon their assets. People under age 60 with more than $2,000 in savings and other assets, such as a second car, will no longer be eligible for food stamps. For people over 60, the limit is $3,250.
I agree that assets should be considered. If someone has, let's say, $50,000 in savings but is making only minimum wage, I don't think that person should get food stamps. After all, they have plenty in the bank to pay for every day expenses. But to say, for example, that a 35-year-old single parent who scrimped to save $3,000 over the past five years for an emergency should be denied food stamps when another person who never bothered to save a dime should get assistance is, quite simply, unfair. And what if two parents both need a car to go to work? The bus is not the most feasible situation for everyone, so why punish those people?
My parents are both retired pharmacists. My dad loves to tell stories from when he worked for a major drug chain. Once a man was mad that he had to pay a $4.00 copay for a prescription. He was complaining to my dad that the last time it was free and he was not going to pay. My dad told the guy if he did not pay, he could not get the prescription. The man proceeded to pull out several hundred dollar bills. Another time a woman was bragging to my dad that she was pregnant with her sixth or seventh child and that meant she would be getting another $125 (or some amount like that) in welfare. The picture of stupidity and idiocy, IMO.
It is because of people like those that many are distrustful and against government assistance. And for sure the government has a responsibility to weed out as many of the abusers as possible (I am looking at you lottery winners!). But this blog writer is not one to punish the conscientious people. And I am afraid this new edict will do just that.
What say you?