Pennsylvania Plans to Reinstate Asset Limits on SNAP (Food Stamps)
2/06/2012 UPDATE: Last week, the Department of Public Welfare announced that asset tests would be set at $5,500 for households (age 59 and under) and $9,000 for households with older Pennsylvanians (age 60 and above) or disabled individuals. For more information, please visit http://policypathwayspa.blogspot.com/2012/02/update-on-snap-asset-testing.html.
Yesterday, Pennsylvania's Department of Public Welfare announced that it was sending a request to the USDA to re-implement asset tests to ascertain eligibility for the SNAP (food stamp) program. If the request goes through, asset limits will go into effect on May 1, 2012.
Implementing an "asset test" means that in addition to income eligibility guidelines, applicants may not have above a certain amount in additional resources. Under the proposed measure, Pennsylvanians with more than $2,000 in savings or assets ($3,250 for adults 60 and over) would not be able to obtain food stamps, even if they meet income guidelines. While housing and retirement benefits do not count against the asset test, savings for emergencies or medical needs (such as seniors saving to cover their Medicare "doughnut hole") would be counted. Families would also be unable to save for security deposits for renting a new apartment. Pennsylvanians applying for food stamps would be able to have one car under the measure, but could not have an additional car if it is valued above $4,650, which could create a serious burden on two-adult families, especially those in rural areas.
As of 2010, all but 14 states had eliminated asset tests for food stamps or raised the asset limits to at least $7,000. Pennsylvania is believed to be the first state asking to reinstate asset testing, which it eliminated in 2008. The $2,000 asset limit appears to be based on an asset cutoff set in 1980, which with inflation would be worth $5,491 today according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The Department of Public Welfare states that the asset test will ensure "people with resources are not taking advantage of the food-stamp program" according to spokesperson Anne Bale. However, the Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger reports that Pennsylvania has one of the lowest fraud rates in the country when it comes to SNAP cases.
Below is a sampling of reactions to this decision. Please let us know your reaction in the comments.
- Philadelphia Inquirer: Pennsylvania to impose asset test for food stamps
- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Test of need: Pa. is right to check assets on food stamp eligibility
- Scranton Times Tribune: Editorial: Asset test to make poor even poorer
- Reading Eagle: Advocates say return of limits could hurt poor
- Scranton Times Tribune: Food stamps asset test condemned as 'idiotic, heartless'
- Reading Eagle: Means testing for food stamps may return
- City of Philadelphia Office of the Controller: Controller Butkovitz Calls State’s Food Stamp Asset Plan Counter-Productive, Mean-Spirited
We absolutely do not need this policy change at a time like this with the unemployment rate as high as it is. This policy would impact the people who have saved their money over time for a rainy day. So when they get laid off, they will have to pay rent/mortgage, utility bills, car bills, repair bills, insurance, health insurance if they purchase through COBRA, and clothing for their children. How are they going to afford food without the help of food stamps after all of the other expenses? In essence the state is expecting everyone to "spend down" to qualify for SNAP with their hard earned savings even if it means that sooner they will run out of money to pay for their housing and could end up homeless if they cannot find work. This may be less mean-spirited if the state was doing more to help reduce the unemployment rate and improve the quality of education for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense to me. I think this new plan penalizes people who try their best to save and be frugal. Most people tell you to have at least a few months emergency fund should anything happen. So, should people exhaust all their resources and not be responsible just to qualify with the new guidelines??? Very sad to me..
ReplyDelete