Imagine this scenario: You are starving, and then the opportunity to get free food appears. The catch? You have to fill out ten forms and have your photograph taken. Would you do so?
No wait, bad example.
Imagine this scenario: You are starving and the only way to get food, is to have people make you feel like a freeloader. Would you accept feeling like a freeloader?
This is the reason why New York City Council Speaker, and future mayoral candidate, Christine Quinn, formally asked Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to stop the practice of fingerprinting applicants to the federal food stamps program.
Opponents of fingerprinting argue that is deterring legitimately poor people from receiving the services that they need. The New York City Coalition Against Hunger has called the fingerprinting requirement “electronic stop-and-frisk,” and that it treats “poor people as if they’re basically criminals for trying to access a program to which they’re legally entitled.” The New York City Council has argued that fingerprinting has prevented nearly $54 million worth of benefits from reaching low-income families, and the businesses they would have spent it in.
Mayor Bloomberg, and his supporters, insist that the program prevents fraud, as it has prevented the same person from receiving more than one benefits package, as well other incidents of fraud. The mayor’s office claims the policy has saved $4 million from being illegally distributed.
This story has been blowing up on the internet, with writers from all perspectives taking a position, so it’s time for me (reluctantly) join the crowd and do so as well.
The program should continue.
First of all, the woman leading the charge is a dubious individual. Christine Quinn has been one of Michael Bloomberg’s biggest lackeys in recent years, supporting his every move, from his undemocratic election to a third term to his anti-teacher educational policies. Her formally challenging Bloomberg, is just an attempt to prevent people like me from calling her spineless when she runs for mayor in two years.
Second, let’s face it, if this were a charity that was fingerprinting individuals, it would be completely different. But governments aren’t charities, and they have a responsibility to tax payers to ensure that the hard earned money they take from us is going to the right places. Fingerprinting food stamps applicants isn’t pretty, but if it prevents fraud it should be continued.
On a personal note, growing up around immigrants and the urban poor, I worked in local supermarkets and had plenty of customers pay with EBT Cards (“food stamps”). The vast majority of them were legitimately poor and deserved the aid they received. Occasionally, there would be that customer who makes you scratch your head; the old woman with the chinchilla coat, the young guy with the Lexus, the young girl with the Coach bag – all of them paying with food stamps. These people were by no means typical customers, but with fraud there is never a typical, and the government still has a duty to prevent it.
About Eric J Cortes
I’ve known a few of those that did not need food stamps because they could have taken a full time job or done with one less thing from the Clinique counter. You know what I mean. I hate those freeloaders that spend their money on fun stuff when they need to be feeding their family but feel that they should get free aid.
I’m asking that people who comment on this sort of thing refrain from making judgement calls. The basis for receiving this benefit should be done on solid underwriting and nothing else. If the city’s underwriters practice due diligence then the fraud will be prevented point blank. Let us not judge people based on their material possessions as a indicator of wealth. Who is to say that chinchilla coat wasn’t purchased at the goodwill store for 5 dollars? who is to say that the Coach purse is really a “caoch” purchased on the side of the street for $20? Who is to say that kid driving the Lexus isn’t actually just volunteering his time and grocery shopping for elderly people in a neighborhood he grew up in as his personal way of giving back?
The truth of the matter is no one who is impoverished wants to appear to be so. yes I will admit there is a huge problem with materialism in low income neighborhoods and poor financial literacy that need to be addressed but that is a separate issue. The burden of proof always lies with the accuser, to prevent fraud it is not necessary to criminalize the eligible deserving recipient.
Fingerprinting doesn’t actually combat the most common fraud tactic. (hidden income from a non-applicant household member be it spouse or relative) If they truly want to prevent fraud they will underwrite the applications in an intelligent way (bank statements, paystubs, proof-of-income, household size, etc)
I agree that individuals seeking to apply for food stamps welfare and other forms of government aid should undergo an application process similar to a job interview process. As a working tax payer I am subject to fingerprinting, background check, and drug testing, I am willing to go through this process because I choose to apply and i want the job. Therefore if an individual chooses to apply and wants government assistance they should be subject to the same amount of processing and evaluation as the individuals who are funding the programs with their tax money. I support government assistance for those who truly need it, and I feel that a more thorough processing of applications would help wean out those who abuse the system as well ad help eliminate some of the “freeloader” stereotypes associated with the individuals who receive government aid.