Every so
often, a story goes viral in the right wing media about lazy
welfare recipients using their EBT Cards to rip off
the taxpayers. EBT stands for "Electronics Benefits Transfer":
these EBT cards are issued by the Department of Agriculture.
They look like— and are— ordinary debit cards, and they are
used for several welfare programs. The most common program is
the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (aka "food
stamps") which can only be used for food. But there are a few
other programs which pay cash benefits which can be used for
anything. The most discreet way to use your cash benefits
would be to withdraw actual bills from an ATM, but that is
inconvenient (and most ATMs only dispense twenties.) So, many
recipients swipe the cards at the register.
A clerk named
Jackie Whiton at the Big Apple store in Peterborough, NH made
up her own rule that said you couldn't use your ATM cards to
buy cigarettes. There absolutely is no such law, and there
wasn't even a Big Apple store rule to that effect. (Such a
rule would be bad for business, anyway.) On May 20 ,
2012, Ms. Whiton confronted an unidentified young man
who tried to break her rule. In her own words, "I said to him,
'Do you think that the man in line behind you and the lady
behind him want to buy you your cigarettes?' And he said
'Yes.' Then he said, 'Give me back my card.' And I said, 'Give
me back my cigarettes.' "
I see where
she is coming from, but I think she should have butted out.
Big Apple disagreed with her actions, and they fired her. She
will be OK: she has become a darling of the rightwing noise machine.
Ms. Whiton has
made much of the assumption that the young man could easily
get a job. However, he was 20 years old and still had a foster
mother, which implies that he is probably disabled. (Although,
perhaps this woman was formerly his foster mother and was now
still looking after him simply because she loved him as if he
was her own son.) I doubt that FoxNews will help him get a
job.
Personally, I
don't think smoking is a good idea (unless perhaps you suffer
from one of a few diseases for which cigarettes happen to be
an effective treatment.) I especially think smoking is a bad
idea if you have no money. The young man in this ugly incident
was either on welfare or he was getting disability payments:
either way, he had a very minimal income. Ironically, she was
harassing her customer on behalf of the taxpayers for buying
the most heavily taxed commodity in the store. Assuming he was
buying a bargain brand of cancer sticks, roughly half of his
purchase was going right back to the government in the form of
tobacco taxes.
The feds get $1.01 per pack and the state gets $1.68. A second
irony is that Ms. Whiton's employer makes much, perhaps most,
of its profit from tobacco sales. I have testified several
times against lowering tobacco taxes, and each and every time
the loudest voices on the other side of the issue were the
state's convenience stores, including Big Apple. One of
Speaker O'Brien's biggest priorities during the 2011 budget
process was lowering the cigarette tax (although
he was only able to cut it by a dime per pack, and had to
resort to 11th-hour pressure tactics to get even that minimal
cut, which was immediately counterbalanced by a ten-cent per
pack rise in wholesale cigarette prices.)
She is talking
about circulating a petition. If she wants to make this a New
Hampshire House petition, I should warn her that the
individuals who sign the petition do not comprise "The People"
or "The Taxpayers." This may sound arrogant, but New Hampshire
is a republic, and hence the government IS the people. The
democratically elected legislature decides how the taxpayers
spend their taxes. She would have to do what 300-plus
residents of Rochester did on 2012 House Petition #32:
have all the signers file the petition jointly. She might also
be able to file a petition individually, although she doesn't
have much standing to do so, since she was not personally
harmed by the current EBT rules. One tactic which she might
consider is to first file for unemployment, which under the
circumstances she is not entitled to— and subsequently to
accuse every official involved in her case of malfeasance.
An
interesting dialog on the New Hampshire mailserver began
with the following message from a citizen named Chris
Borges:
From:
Christopher Borges
Sent:
Mon, Jul 2, 2012 16:24:42 EDT
Christopher
Borges
I wish that my purchase of a
pack of cigarrettes wasn't an issue for public
debate, but as a recipient of Suplemental Social
Security, Food stamp and Medicaid benefits, it
suddenly seems that it is. I recieve 698 dollars a
month cash from the Social Security Administration
for a health condition which has persisted since
adolescence (I applied for Social Security in
December 2009, it wasn't until this past month, June
2012, that I finally was approved for benefits), I
recieve 200 dollars a month for food stamps. The
rent at my studio apartment is 550 dollars a month,
leaving me 148 dollars a month to spend on
everything I need besides food and shelter (which I
am greatful to have, to live in a country where
there is a minimum social protection floor at this
standard of living is something which billions do
not benefit from). Can I spend that 5.87$ on a pack
of cigarrettes? Is that okay I wonder, as tears well
in my eyes reading commentators describing people
like me as social parasites. Ironically the same
people obsessed with individualism and the free
market seem to see a need to tell individuals how to
spend their money. Why do people who are sick or
unemployed need to justify their spending habits,
simply becauase they are in receipt of support from
their community (transferred via the government in
the form of cash)? Is every taxpayer that I
encounter in my life «entitled» (to turn a phrase) a
run-down of my medical condition, shelter expenses,
etc? Why do people feel license to lambast the poor,
speak of us as leeches, a problem that needs to be
exterminated? I hope that this letter provokes
thought, and not hatred, I know it is uncommon for
even the poor among us not to feign shame and
brave-endurance in the face of poverty, I will not:
I'm poor, I'm on welfare, I smoke cigarettes, and I
am not a social parasite.
Christopher
Borges
159 Orange St. Apt. 3L
Manchester, NH 03104
Rep. Nick
Levasseur who is one of Mr. Borges' reps, replied
thoughtfully:
From:
Levasseur, Nickolas
Sent:
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:31 AM
Mr.
Borges,
The
debate forming here is not focused on whether or not
you are a smoker or what you do with "your money".
Rather, it is centered on whether or not the tax payer
dollars you receive should be spent on non essential
items-- which cigarettes certainly are. Indeed, at the
heart of the debate is the very question of whether or
not those tax payer dollars are truly yours or whether
or not the tax payers who provide them are entitled to
some say in how they are spent.
This
issue is hardly new. However, your story has sparked a
new round of public debate. There are many who feel
that this long overdue. I, for one, believe that this
is an important issue; one that is certainly deserving
of the attention it had been receiving. Regardless,
the debate has started and it will, like countless
other issues, play itself out in the halls of
government and public opinion.
I am
sorry that you have found yourself at the business end
of the outcry on this issue. There are few pains that
sting so clear as that of public scorn. Particularly
for someone who, unlike many of us, did not choose a
public life.
Thank
you for taking the time to reach out and tell your
side of the story.
Best,
Hon.
Nickolas J Levasseur
State Representative
Hillsborough District 11
Manchester, Ward 4
Then, I weighed in:
From:
Horrigan, Timothy
Sent:
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:23 AM
EBT
cards look and work like regular debit cards, only
they are labelled as such. I think that is
unfortunate. However, the federal government requires
us to label them, and also many stores lack point of
sale systems which allow aid recipients to choose
between their cash accounts and their food-stamps
account.
--Timothy
Horrigan
Then Rep. Jack Flanagan replied:
From:
Flanagan, Jack
Sent:
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11:52 AM
Tim,
Nothing
personal, but I think the majority of my constituents
don't think EBT cards should be used for tobacco
products or even liquor. I am sure they are being used
for other things that we haven't heard about. I hope
to see a bill next Biennium addressing this.
Regards,
Rep
Jack Flanagan
Hillsboro 5
Hollis, Brookline and Mason, NH
The usually mild-mannered Rep. Fred Leonard was
moved to an uncharacteristic expression of anger:
From:
Leonard, Frederick
Sent:
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:11 PM
This
is enlightening...I had no idea child support and
alimony were tied into public assistance EBT
cards...these all need to be completely
separate!!!...and I'm with Rep Flanagan, the people I
represent are off the hook over this issue...if I'm
re-elected, they'd have my head on a platter if there
wasn't something done about this!
Fred
Leonard
Rep. Jeff Oligny (sponsor of David Vandenberg's House Petition)
lectured the rest of us about two of his favorite topics,
personal responsibility and child support:
From:
Oligny, Jeffrey
Sent:
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:03 PM
I
think the point may be getting lost here. My belief is
that people should support themselves. I'd like to
think that folks on both sides of the aisle agree.
Where people need help, we, the society, should help
them (government assistance). This help should be
remedial and promote rehabilitation toward
self-sufficiency, NOT help the individual to "give up"
and let society support them unnecessarily. After all,
people in need of help should be on the same team as
the government, promoting their individual's
self-sufficiency and happiness, no?
Without
proper controls and feedback for this government
assistance, some believe "improper use" happens too
often. A critical eye has developed in society as a
result, and people are now "judging" others at the
checkout counter. What we're facing here is a
perception. The perception is that someone is
squandering our tax dollars (government assistance)
and not engaged in supporting themselves by using an
EBT card to buy cigarrettes. Maybe they are and should
be stopped. Or maybe they are supporting themselves to
the best of their ability and the fact that they used
an EBT Card versus cash that they earned is
inconsequential.
Regardless,
isn't the real issue the public's skepticism over the
ability of the government assistance system to promote
self-sufficiency and proper use of tax dollars? Maybe
we should take a better look at that? If the public
was convinced that the system was working properly,
providing help where needed, assuring a mutual goal of
self-sufficiency and an appropriate use of government
tax dollars, we would not be having this discussion.
BTW,
this same problem (skepticism from lack of
accountability, leading to judgement) exists within
our family law system relative to the collection of,
disbursment of, and use of, child support dollars. The
only difference is that this one helps promote family
conflict and hurts our children by putting their
parents at war. The upside here is the creation of
conflict which creates "jobs" for people to "remedy"
the conflict. We have also failed to adequately
address this issue. At least we're consistant with
this, inaction and apathy. Let's hope next session is
more responsive to these concerns. It's time to stpp
letting perfection be the enemy of the good and drive
some progress to these problems.
Best,
Jeff
Hon. Jeffrey D. Oligny
NH State Representative
Hampstead - Plaistow – Kingston
House of Representatives
Children & Family Law Committee
jeffrey.oligny@leg.state.nh.us
- Due
to the large volume of e-mail I receive, I'm unable to
respond to all messages personally. Please call me at
205-351-8003 if your message is urgent -
Rep. Donald LeBrun chimed in:
From:LeBrun,
Donald
Sent:
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 3:39 PM
To put
it in a nutshell. We do not owe anyone a lifestyle, we
only owe an existence. The rest is the individual
responsibility unless they are unable to do so .
Rep. Dan Itse has a reputation for being very far
to the right, but he is fairminded and his response was
extremely sensible. (He has a disabled son who needs public
assistance):
From:
Daniel C. Itse
Date:
Tuesday, Jul 3, 2012, 6:40 PM
This is not a problem anymore.
EBT cards are going the way of the dodo bird and
being replaced with bankcards so that they are
indistinguishable by the cashier they will be either
a Mastercard or VISA under whatever bank the Feds
designate. The advantage is that we can order
medical supplies from the cheapest source including
over the internet and don't have to mess about with
Medicaid which adds 6 mos. and quadruples to
sextuples the cost due to prescription.
Dan
Hon.
Daniel C. Itse
Chairman, Constitutional Review and Statutory
Recodification
(603)
642-9403
LeBrun indignantly fired back:
From: LeBrun, Donald
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 8:59
AM
How can you say EBT cards are no
longer a problem? EBT cards by any name or means of
transacting are a problem that needs reform. We only owe
an existence, not a lifestyle.
Sent from my iPad
Itse patiently replied:
From: Daniel C. Itse
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 4:20 PM
You are concerned about the last technology, about 18
years old. They are now, issuing new "credit cards"
through a commercial bank. In fact, checks will no longer
be allowed.
Dan
Finally, while researching this piece
I found an old email from former Rep. Dick Marple. It contained a
scan of a register tape from a grocery store in a small town on
the Michigan-Wisconsin border, which apparently proves that EBT
cards are being abused 1200 miles to the east in New Hampshire.
Someone bought five sixpacks of Mountain Dew as well as some
lobsters and steak with their food stamp account. Heaven forfend!
Even though no state sales tax was paid, Marple was still
scandalized (and he blamed Obama.)
The current food stamp rules date back
to the reign of that archliberal President George W. Bush. You can buy
anything which is food, as long as it's not prepared food. That
includes non-nutritious foods like Diet Mountain Dew, and it also
includes nutritious but luxurious foods like steak or lobster.
These rules are in place largely because of pressure from
retailers and their lobbyists. I might also add that it's not just
jobless people who get food stamps: there are some folks with jobs
who get them, especially folks with large families.
Marple sent out his email on May 23,
2011. At the time, the rightwing blogosphere was operating on the
assumption that some lazy pig was gorging himself on steak and
lobster at taxpayer expense while working people were subsisting
on rice and beans. In early June, the truth was revealed. The
story was broken by a local Fox affiliate, but it has been
verified by other sources. A Menominee resident named Lewis Cuff
stole his girlfriend's card and used it to buy a cartload of
steaks, soda and lobsters which he resold for cash. This was
dishonest and highly illegal, not to mention dumb— but Mr. Cuff
was not exactly being lazy. He probably used up her benefit for
the whole month, by the way.
