ICYMI - links from around the web

There's been so much going on this week that I thought an ICYMI (in case you missed it) column was in order ... so here we go:

* Did you know that school officials have an "obligation" to ensure that property taxes that fund schools are "fair"??? Nope, I didn't realize that was in their job description either. But that's exactly what a representative of school administrators and boards told an Ohio senate committee this week.

The premise is that they *must* challenge the values of properties in order to ensure that fairness, but is that really the case? As Lucas County Auditor Anita Lopez says, if that were true, wouldn't they also challenge property values that are too high? Turns out, they don't.

Read the whole thing at Ohio Watchdog

* If you were asked to describe a political action committee, would you include a group of people who get together to talk about politics? How about if one of the people in the group was a blogger? Probably not your idea of a PAC - but that's exactly what Ohio thinks is a PAC and they want a Cleveland-area blogger to register and follow all the rules associated with being a PAC - and pay the fines/fees for not already doing so.

This could have ramifications for any group in the state that discusses politics, regardless of political perspective. So the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review what it calls the "nation's strictest PAC regulations."

Read more at Ohio Watchdog

* The Farm Bill - though since it's really 80% food stamps so the name is quite misleading - is pending before Congress. Here's some really interesting information you need to know, especially since the bogus 'food stamp challenge' is back. Funny that this ridiculous challenge seems to be a regular event every time the bill is up for vote...but I digress.

Take a look at this chart. Do you really think we should borrow even more money to fund a 56% increase in spending for the Farm Bill?

* If you think George Orwell got it right in his book 1984, you should read this article about Herbert Spencer who wrote The Man Versus The State - in 1884.

There are some really terrific quotes from him and his book like:

Regulations have been made in yearly growing numbers, restraining the citizen in directions where his actions were previously unchecked, and compelling actions which previously he might perform or not as he liked; and at the same time heavier public burdens … have further restricted his freedom, by lessening that portion of his earnings which he can spend as he pleases, and augmenting the portion taken from him to be spent as public agents please.

The more numerous public instrumentalities become, the more is there generated in citizens the notion that everything is to be done for them, and nothing by them. Every generation is made less familiar with the attainment of desired ends by individual actions or private agencies; until, eventually, governmental agencies come to be thought of as the only available agencies.

and in a nod to the 'you didn't build that' meme:

It is not to the State that we owe the multitudinous useful inventions from the spade to the telephone; it is not the State which made possible extended navigation by a developed astronomy; it was not the State which made the discoveries in physics, chemistry, and the rest, which guide modern manufacturers; it was not the State which devised the machinery for producing fabrics of every kind, for transferring men and things from place to place, and for ministering in a thousand ways to our comforts. The worldwide transactions conducted in merchants' offices, the rush of traffic filling our streets, the retail distributing system which brings everything within easy reach and delivers the necessaries of life daily at our doors, are not of governmental origin. All these are results of the spontaneous activities of citizens, separate or grouped.

You might not have time to read the whole book, but this article about it will give you a good overview - and might surprise you at how predictable the move to tyranny is.

Food insecurity - reality or hype?

You've probably heard the commercials numerous times - one in five kids in the country are going hungry - usually recited in a sad little girl's voice. Now it's one in four.

I heard a blurb on the radio this morning talking about food insecurity. I’m not sure if it was a news item or an advertisement, but the premise of the message was completely wrong.

First it said that one out of four children in Ohio live in a home that is “food insecure” – that they don’t know where their next meal is coming from.

Having looked at various food insecurity questionnaires and polls, I could find no single common definition of food insecurity. In some of the forms, the one in four or one in five results come from a question that asks ‘can you afford the food you want to buy?’

Who wouldn’t answer that question no? I’d love to eat lobster and freshly-caught salmon and oysters on a regular basis – but I can’t afford to. So if that is the primary question that results in being ‘food insecure,’ then my household would qualify.

Other questions are more realistic in terms of assessing the status of families in terms of their ability to feed themselves. And I’m certain there are families that are having a hard time, but do we really think that 25% of kids in the state are actually going hungry on a regular basis?

The blurb continued saying that 800,000 children “depend” upon the free lunch program in schools.

There is no way that can be accurate – because they cannot know for sure.

I’m certain the number is correct in terms of participation in the free lunch program and how many children are both eligible and participating.

But participation doesn’t mean that the children are dependent. There are families who could provide lunches for their kids, but choose to participate in the program because they can. Again, this is certainly not all of the kids, but probably a good amount of them.

So without actually evaluating each family to know their status and ability to feed their children, it’s disingenuous to assume that participation means dependency.

It then said that only 1 in 10 of those kids participate in summer lunch programs designed to continue the feeding of children who get free school lunches.

It implied that all those children must be going hungry during the summer since they’re not enrolled in a summer lunch feeding program.

But there’s another conclusion that is just as valid as an assumption: that the kids not participating in the summer lunch program are being fed by their family.

And if kids are being fed by their families during the summer, maybe they don’t *need* to be fed by the government during the school year.

I have no idea if either conclusion is accurate, but the possibility exists that either is true – though it is more likely that the truth is somewhere in between.

My problem with the blurb is the assumption that participation in free school lunch program equals dependency and the conclusion that lack of participation in summer lunch program equals going hungry.

But how many people will actually think through the alternate possibility instead of reacting emotionally to the blurb and the appeal to either enroll in the summer feeding program or help support it?

It's back - fake Food Stamp challenges

Like a bad penny or a poltergeist, the fake Food Stamp challenge is back.

Our local newspaper, The Blade, is again participating, though they've added a modern twist by calling it the Blade 'Hunger Games.'

Could you live on a food budget of $23 a week? That's the question facing Blade staffers this week as they participate in the Food Stamp Challenge. Here you can read about our thoughts and experiences as my colleagues and I have a food budget of just $23 each to stretch over five days.

This year's challenge is sponsored in our state by the Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies. EOPA is our local Toledo member.

Here is the challenge:

In 2011, 1.75 million Ohioans received food assistance benefits, more commonly known as food stamps. Ohio’s Community Action Agencies are initiating a Food Stamp Challenge April 30-May 4 in honor of Community Action Month to give participants a view of what life can be like for these low-income Ohioans.

During the Challenge, participants will limit their total food purchases to the weekly budget of a typical food stamp recipient. The goal of the Challenge is to increase awareness around poverty and hunger in Ohio by facilitating a meaningful personal experience for participants. While living on a food stamp budget for just one week cannot come close to the struggles encountered by low-income families week after week and month after month, it does provide those who take the Challenge with a new perspective and greater understanding.

It all sounds good, but as I've written extensively, the devil is in the details.

In 2007, which I first started tracking our county commissioners' participation in this publicity stunt, the average benefit was $21 per person per week. This year's challenge has the rate at $32.31 per person per week. In case you're not good at math, that's a 54% increase in the amount of benefits over a five year span. However, since they're only asking participants to do the challenge over 5 days, the 2012 challenge is to live on a food budget of only $23/week.

But as I documented in 2007, no one is expected to live on only $23 per week:

The maximum amount of food stamps a person can get - having no other income or resources - is $36.57. Those who get "only" $21 per week have been determined to need only $21 based upon a comprehensive formula which shows other funds (up to 30% of wages/other cash assets) available to be devoted to purchasing food.

The challenge is seriously flawed in the dollar amount. But worse, it is designed with failure as the goal:

But this entire challenge isn't about honesty. It's about manipulation. It's about generating false data to prove a point. The $21 a week amount is so obviously bogus that there can be no excuse for our commissioners to not have questioned the amount. Such an error is further compounded by the fact that local Job and Family Services staff - who actually administer the food stamp program in Lucas County under control and direction of the commissioners - are participating. And they - more than anyone else - know that no one is expected to live on $21 a week for food.

Additionally, the challenge was accepted under false pretenses. They didn't accept the challenge with concept of actually succeeding. They're trying to prove it CAN'T be done. Commissioner Konop actually said, "The whole point ... is to fail." Well, obviously! Any success wouldn't look good to those using the 'failures' as justification for more funding. This was manipulation at its finest - or worst.

Just why are we doing such a challenge? I connected the dots in 2007:

A national non-profit begins a publicity campaign to draw attention to the food stamp program and calls it the "Food Stamp Challenge." National group links to local groups and pulls them into the stunt by getting them to enroll local elected and community leaders in the challenge. Local leaders 'prove' the point that you can't live on $21 a week and, even if you can survive, you can't do so in a healthy way. Local groups report back to National group who then uses all these local 'examples' and numerous media reports as evidence that the Food Stamp program needs more money. National group then testifies about the program and the need for more money, using the sympathy gained from 'challenges' across the country to urge Congress to act accordingly.

FRAC (Food Research and Action Center) is national non-profit doing the lobbying today, as it was in 2007. They are opposed to the 2012 Farm Bill because, they claim, it changes eligibility under the Heat and Eat program in states with that program. According to FRAC, some families reach a 'basis' under the LIHEAP program that "triggers" higher food stamp benefits. They estimate that proposed modifications to the basis will "reduce nutrition benefits for low income households living in Heat and Eat states. This cut is estimated at $4.49 billion over ten years."

The Senate Agriculture Committee passed the bill on April 26, hence the timing of this year's challenge.

Oh - and according to their 2010 Form 990, FRAC pent $366,206 on lobbying. Since 2007, they've spent over $1.3 million lobbying on behalf of the food stamp program.. The Form 990 also shows that they took in just under $8.4 million and spent $2.4 million on salaries, compensation and other benefits.

Sadly for those who are truly struggling in this economy, this fake challenge isn't about actually helping them - it's to lobby for more government spending at a time when the government is borrowing record amounts and spending trillions more than what it takes in.

What's worse is that this lobbying stunt, designed to provoke sympathy, ensnares good local organizations in the manipulative and false efforts. In a 2007 radio interview on AM 1370 WSPD, two local pastors, Reverends Kevin Perrine and Steve Anthony of Toledo Area Ministries' "Feed Your Neighbor" program, admitted as much:

"... I cannot decide if they are pawns in this nationwide publicity stunt to generate emotional support for an increased food stamp funding - or knowing accomplices who didn't expect their data to be challenged and then underestimated the reaction when it was shown to be incorrect. I'd like to believe they are just pawns, but some of their answers indicate that they were well aware of the appeal to emotion in order to influence the national legislation.

They acknowledged that the idea for the local challenge came as a result of an email from FRAC (Food Research and Action Center). When asked about the source of the $21 per day per person amount, which is identified as the average that a person on food stamps receives in benefits, they agreed that it was an average, but said that the actual amount was $23, but "they lowered it...but that's not the point of the challenge."

(Aside: so they knew it was more than $21 but they lowered it by $2 for what reason?)

...

... by saying that the point was to generate empathy, they are admitting that the underlying premise is to show this is not only difficult, but nearly impossible...which means that the challenge is designed for failure.

When Fred asked whether or not, then, the $21 was deceptive, they answered that the point with the commissioners was "to show them what they can do to get into action – what they can do with the farm bill at a national level and at a state level..."

So they acknowledge the purpose was to generate support for additional funding in the 2007 Farm Bill, and to enlist the help of the commissioners in doing so.

But just to be sure, Fred clarified the point. "So the bottom line is to get the commissioners involved … to petition the government to raise more money for the food stamp program?"

"Well, it’s not only that," was the answer, "but it’s also ... so they can also pass on what they see locally to the people they know."

So, again, we want the commissioners to prove this incorrect figure of $21 is just not enough and then tell their story to our Congressional representatives. Yes - it's all a well-coordinated national campaign to provide 'evidence' that the food stamp program needs more money.

When Fred asked them how they felt about being involved in program that would try to sway public opinion using lies and dishonesty as this one obviously does, they didn't answer the question.

They did say, "...no ... I don’t ... our motivation for doing this has nothing to do with deception or dishonesty – we’re calling attention to a problem and the problem is our food pantries are running out of food because the need is greater now than it has been and we’re just calling attention that."

In other words, don't question the facts, just look at the motivation...we're trying to do something good. Don't judge this by anything other than our intentions.

...

I think it's more likely that they understood the purpose was to influence Congress to put more money into the food stamp program, but they really didn't think about the political or public relations ramifications of someone pointing out that this was just a publicity stunt.

And then, when evidence was presented that the $21 amount was intentionally false in order to have more chance of failing the challenge, they did what most do when caught in a similar situation - they issued an emotional appeal to their INTENTIONS, implying that since the motivation was good, we should just overlook the falsities upon which the stunt is based.

Sadly, by not being honest about the intent and the goal of failing, and then asking us to just overlook those things because of the 'need,' they've done more harm than good to their stated intent of bringing attention to the plight of the food banks.

That was in 2007. Here we are in 2012 and they're still at it, enlisting the help of newspapers, organizations and elected officials in a publicity stunt that obviously hasn't worked in the past (oops...let's not mention that little fact) or else we wouldn't still be doing it.

As a matter of record, one person can succeed in eating for a week on $21 - and doing so in a healthy manner. I've proved it (go to link to see the photos referenced):

But, to prove a point, here's a photo of the 31 food items I was able to purchase for $21.28. (I was a bit over, but figured that if a person didn't have an extra 28 cents, they could have purchased one less Jello.)

And just to prove my cost, here's a photo of the receipt. There's nothing special in my purchases, but I was able to get canned vegetables and fruit, plenty of pasta, spaghetti sauce, tomato sauce, tuna fish, and even Jello. And, if I'd had the extra $14.67 that a food stamp recipient would actually have, I would have bought the following:

* whole chicken for $3.86 (good for several meals for one)
* one pound of ground beef for $2.79
* two pork chops for $1.50
* quart of milk for $1.49 (I don't need much)
* 5 bananas for $.88
* one head of lettuce for $.99
* one loaf of bread for $.92
* a dozen eggs for $1.49
* one pound of carrots $.75

...proving that one person can comfortably survive in a healthy way on the amount of food stamps benefits they receive. In fact, I'd have plenty of left-overs to allow me to shop for more fresh fruit, vegetables and cheese the next week. There's just no way that I'd use all of the pasta, mac & cheese, Jello, peanut butter or all-purpose flour/pancake mix in just one week.

And the fact that my purchases in the second week would give me greater flexibility in developing a healthy menu is a point conveniently overlooked in a one-week challenge.

This publicity stunt won't help people who are struggling to put food on the table, but my BETTER food stamp challenge will:

If the government takes an additional, say $21, for lack of better dollar amount, of taxes from each of us and dedicates that to the food stamp program, the end result, after deducting for bureaucracy and processing through the federal government to the state government to the local county offices, would certainly be less than $21.

So I challenge each and every one of you - take $21 and purchase appropriate goods and donate them to your favorite food bank or similar program. And make a commitment to do so on whatever regular basis you can. That's what I've done. Instead of just 'struggling' through a fake challenge, put your money where your mouth is. That will certainly do more to help those in need than some silly publicity stunt.

Don't be taken in by the fake Food Stamp challenge - and don't wait for government to take more of your taxes in order to feed your neighbors.

Do it yourself - your actions will be much more efficient and longer-lasting than any publicity stunt.

The slippery slope - subsidies to buy fruits, veggies

It should come as no surprise that subsidies are 'naturally' going to follow the new dietary guidelines from the government. What could be more 'natural' than government subsidies?!?

You see, the federal government has again revised the listing of what is good for us and what isn't (per order from Congress) and because we're so stupid as to not obey them (because we're busy making our own choices and living with the consequences), they're going to try to bribe us into doing what they want.

From CNSNews:

"At an event on Monday to unveil the federal government’s new dietary guidelines for Americans, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that subsidies may be used to encourage people on government assistance to eat more fruits and vegetables.

CNSNews.com asked the secretaries to explain what was meant by Vilsack’s remarks about incentives to encourage the consumption of more fruits and vegetables.

Vilsack said that a pilot program is in place in Massachusetts to allow participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – or SNAP – to get a discount for buying fruits and vegetables.

“The grocer basically gets paid full value for the fruit or vegetable that’s being purchased but it’s only credited say 70 or 80 percent on the card,” Vilsack said at the event, held at George Washington University."

Oh - so only if you're already getting handouts do you get even more. The rest of us, who are paying taxes so you can eat for free - we get nothing, except a higher bill.

The guidelines, which are required by Congress and are updated, as needed, every five years, also set a 300 milligram limit of cholesterol and encourage people to eat more chicken and fish and to avoid beef, which is defined as a “solid fat.”

Wonder what the beef industry will say to that? I also wonder if beef farmers are getting subsidies - or if they'll need them now that people are going to be reducing the amount of beef they eat?

What a tangled web of rules, regulations and government intrusion!

Here's the problem with subsidizing fruits and vegetables under the SNAP program: it's the equivalent of just giving them more money. There are guidelines and formulas in place for people on food stamps that bases the amount of assistance on earnings, number of people in the family, etc. By making them 'pay' less (because *they* don't really pay), you're giving them more money to spend. Where is the additional money coming from when it's clear our government is already broke? Nothing is really 'free' - we all know this fact. So who is paying for this 'subsidy'?

And then there is the sheer unfairness of it all. Liberals are so focused on fairness, though today it takes the form of the term 'justice.' They are constantly trying to attain equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. So in looking at this latest plan, why should dependents of the government get a product for less than what the rest of us have to pay? Why should they, alone, be subsidized simply because they've either fallen on hard times or are part of the growing class of people who are generationally dependent upon the government for sustenance?

If it's good for them, isn't it good for all of us? Or perhaps that's the plan - for the government to take over the purchasing and distribution of things that are 'good for us' so we no longer have to worry about making such decisions, especially because we don't do what the politicians and bureaucrats want us to do in the first place.

Then there is the condescending nature of the whole idea - that people who are on food stamps don't make good decisions and they only way to 'force' them to make good decisions is to pay them to do so.

Two thoughts come to mind. One is that fresh fruit and veggies are cheaper than junk food, so they shouldn't need to be subsidized; and the other is that I would be *offended* if the government tried to bribe me into making food selections that they have approved.

Why don't people on food stamps have these same thoughts? Maybe some do, but if you've got people who, for generations, have used food stamps for their groceries, they've been conditioned to not be as accountable as others because they're using *other people's money.* They don't make good decisions because the government always bails them out and fails to allow them to suffer the consequences - instead rewarding them with more money or help or assistance. So of course they don't make good decisions - they've never learned how.

Despite that being the case, you'd think they'd have a bit of independence and reject the bribery designed to force them to change their habits. But then again, perhaps not. As I said earlier - maybe they'll just use the money they save for buying more junk food.

The losers in all of this are you and me. We'll pay full price while also paying for SNAP recipients to not have to. And the politicians will use all of it as a reason we should keep electing them.

Tracking what you eat - the food stamp slippery slope

As a county commissioner, I saw first-hand the efforts to increase the number of people receiving food stamps - now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Access Program).

The problem, the government said, was that millions of eligible Americans weren't actually participating. Imagine that - people who qualified for a government hand-out weren't actually signing up for it.

Some claimed it was the stigma of the paper coupons that embarrassed people to the point that they'd go without the magnanimity of the government. So they went to Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, similar to debit cards to make it less obvious to others in a checkout lane that you were using government handouts. And they changed the name to make it sound more palatable.

Voila! Success - as the participation rate increased to roughly 66% of those eligible.

But that wasn't the only thing. Massive advertising campaigns - everything from commercials on radio and television to workers placed at food banks - encouraged more people to apply.

And then there was the eligibility rules. While the federal government sets the eligibility, states were able to do 'special' things - like automatically grant food stamps to people already enrolled in other welfare programs like TANF - Temporary Assistance to Needy Families - without checking their actual income and assets to see if they'd qualify for SNAP alone. And some areas got waivers, based upon statistical data like unemployment rates, and increased the eligibility level from 130% of poverty level up to as much as 400% of poverty level. That raised the amount of money a family could make and still get the assistance.

So it should come as no surprise that we see a record number of people now enrolled in the program - 42.9 million as of September 2010. Despite what many claim, it's clear that the increased levels of eligibility along with the massive enrollment efforts have had as much of an impact as the economy in increasing the numbers of participants.

Such programs claim to be a 'helping hand,' but I believe they're really just another method to create a dependent class who rely upon politicians for their daily needs. While that is insidious enough, there is a further danger that seems to fit so well into the current Washington discussions led by First Lady Michelle Obama - controlling what we choose to eat.

Now I know that there are many people of all political persuasions who believe that individuals in SNAP should be restricted in what they purchase. The logic is that if you're so poor that you need other people's tax dollars in order to feed your family, you shouldn't be living on TV dinners, soda pop, munchies and candy. And there is a lot of validity to that perspective.

But the new EBT cards - like frequent buyer cards - can track what you purchase. And that makes them a new tool in government control, as this article from Reason.com explains:

With its EBT system, it (U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service) can now intimately monitor and potentially influence the eating habits of more than 40 million Americans. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already floated the idea of making soda off-limits for SNAP recipients. (In 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture denied Minnesota permission to enact a similar ban.) Hank Cardello, author of Stuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat, thinks a more general form of gastronomic policing is the way to go. “Rather than create a modern-day Prohibition on specific foods or beverages, the food stamp program should be restructured to cap the total calories purchased each month,” he writes at The Atlantic.

So far the government has shown more interest in rewarding good behavior than punishing bad. In December 2011, the FNS will start testing a “healthy incentives” program in Hampden County, Massachusetts. Participants will receive a 30 percent discount on their EBT purchases of fruits and vegetables. As coercion goes, this may qualify as pretty benign stuff. You give millions of hungry Americans money for food. And then you give them even more money if they agree to eat like upscale locavores battling Big Corn Syrup.

But locavores want to decentralize the food system in an effort to reclaim control over what goes into their bodies. SNAP is moving in the opposite direction. And as its new status as a behavior modification tool grows increasingly apparent, so too does the realization that the program’s growth, commonly attributed to economic desperation, is fueled at least as much by policy imperatives. Food stamp use has hit historic highs because the government’s effort to expand the program has hit historic highs. Even more than McDonald’s, the feds have mastered the art of supersizing.

The technology exists and can be used. My Kroger card tracks what I purchase and sends me coupons in the mail for items I purchase regularly.

The bigger problem, though, is that so many who need to take advantage of the food stamp program probably don't even know about this. And, if they do, perhaps they figure it's an acceptable price to pay for the assistance. They might even justify it as a proper control, even if it's not being used ... today.

But in the future - what, exactly, will the federal government do with the information they can easily collect? As the Bard says, "Aye, there's the rub."

What's wrong with this?

Today's paper has an article about the Lucas County Job and Family Services outreach to minority populations.

It's really just a profile piece, but there are certain points screaming for attention that get none.

Let's start with the very first paragraphs:

Despite multimillion-dollar budget cuts and skyrocketing demand for services, one government agency is hungry for more clients.

Lucas County Job and Family Services is sending its outreach coordinator, Betty Rios, into the community to promote the agency - and its programs - to minority populations that might otherwise be left behind.

The reaction of most people to this would be to ask: Why, if you've got less money and more demand, are you trying to increase the number of people you serve? The article explains how the agency has cut back on staff and how the offices are much more crowded than in the past. A prior article in the paper mentioned how the number of clients each case worker serves has also increased.

So why try to increase the work load, especially when you have less money with which to 'service' said clients?

Sadly, the article doesn't address this question.

Then there is this sentence:

Last year, 71,000 people were receiving food stamps, while this year, the number is 81,000.

Yesterday, I did a post about a new feature on the Ohio Secretary of State web page that lists various statistical data, including the number of food assistance recipients by county. That data did not include 2008 or 2009 information, but this article does. Based upon the recent yearly figures, does anyone care why the number of people getting food stamps has increased 111% since 2001 - increased even when the economy was good????

The article doesn't address this question, either.

And then, tugging on the heartstrings so we get distracted from the logical and reasonable analysis of the information and don't ask such questions, there are stories of two families who are now getting help.

Here's the point in those two examples you may miss: the amount of food stamps each family will get.

An hour later, he left with the assurance that his parents would receive $322 a month in food stamps.

and

...Ms. Rios was able to tell the waiting couple that their baby was eligible for $200 a month in food stamps and Medicaid.

Remember the bogus food stamp challenges our elected officials and newspaper writers took? You know, the one where they willingly partake in a publicity stunt to raise the amount of the give-away by trying to live on $23 a week, which is what the lobbyists say is the average amount of food stamps recipients get? None of them could live on that meager amount - and the few that could bemoaned the fact that they couldn't get a healthy diet on that amount. All this to 'prove' that individuals need more than the average and government (meaning tax payers) have to cough up more money for the program.

Funny, but in this story, the amounts received are much greater than $23 a person. The parents are each getting $37.44 per week and the baby is getting $46.51 per week (based upon 4.3 weeks in a month). Where is the follow-up or notation explaining how it can possibly be that these recipients are getting more than what our politicians tried to live on?

Could it be that, despite the spin, the food stamp program actually meets the needs at the current give-away amounts and that the weekly allotment does NOT need to be increased?

Again, a reasonable question that arises within the story but remains unanswered.

But there is another message subtly woven in amongst the words: that there is no shame in being on the government dole. The entire purpose of the outreach coordinator is to make it 'okay' for people to sign up for government handouts.

People weren't comfortable applying for benefits because of a cultural stigma or fear of immigration services. And in most cases they were from countries that had no system of public benefits.

What's wrong with a cultural stigma that imparts the message of independence and self-reliance? Why is it such a bad thing for people to not want to be dependent upon government? Why are we trying to overcome the reluctance of dependency? Why are we 'struggling' to encourage people to give up their 'shame' of participation?

In the instance of the Kim family - the parents mentioned above - the son was looking for medical assistance for his father. He came away with both parents enrolled in two programs. Why - when the original need was for one?

Some will say that your own tax dollars have funded these programs for years so you might as well enroll when eligible and get your money's worth. And that's a valid point, made more insidious because you have no choice about 'contributing' even if you swear on a stack of Bibles never to receive in exchange for an exemption to give.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that half of Hispanics who are eligible for food stamps don't apply.

Overall, that means 4 million aren't getting benefits that may be crucial to their survival.

Just look at that wording - if you're Hispanic, you're not getting what you're 'entitled' to. And if you don't let the government take care of you based upon its determination of your abilities, then you might not survive.

However, this contradicts the fact that these families are, indeed, surviving. Maybe not to government bureaucratic standards, but by their own. But if government comes along and says, 'look - we can give you more than what you have, and it's free,' why would anyone say no?

Insidious ... creating a dependency and then expecting, as a return, the continuing support of those who promise ever more and more dependence.

What would our founding fathers say? And why is a 'free press' perpetuating it?

The 'appearance' of economic growth

This morning on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD, a caller had a question for Rep. Bob Latta who was scheduled to call in to discuss his no vote on the stimulus bill.

The caller wanted to know why Latta would vote no on the bill when there was a sod company in his district that might have benefited by one of the provisions in the bill - to spend $20 million on sod for the National Mall.

Latta explained that the bill as a whole was bad and wouldn't do what was promised - but there's an even better answer that demonstrates the reason why conservatives don't support government spending as 'economic development.' However, given time constraints, Latta probably wouldn't have been able to give it.

Suppose, for instance, that the local sod company decided to go through all the headaches and red tape of doing business with the federal government and then actually got part of the contract for supplying the sod. The owner would have a single large order paid for with tax dollars.

Now, those tax dollars have to come from somewhere, so either the government borrows the money (increasing our debt and subtracting dollars from future projects in order to meet the interest payments) or it taxes us more in order to raise the funds. It could also print up more bills, leading to inflation.

Regardless, the government 'takes' (in one form or another) the money from us. That means that none of us have the funds to replace our own sod. The local company has the single order which probably won't be duplicated. Potential customers in this area are left with less funds so they won't be ordering from him. Government - in spending this way - creates the appearance of economic growth, but no growth has actually occurred.

Now, if the government gave every taxpayer (not every citizen, but everyone who actually pays taxes) a reduction in their tax rates, every taxpayer would have more money. Those taxpayers would then either spend it, invest it or save it. If they spend it, they generate the activity that leads to economic growth, creating a demand for products and services. If they invest it, it provides the equity and funds for companies to do capital projects, like upgrading equipment or facilities. Again, that generates the activity that then leads to economic growth. If they save it, the bank they use has higher assets and can loan more.

And the local sod company would have many potential clients with more disposable income to provide a long-term customer base for their own growth.

And all of this would happen without government spending a dime - all government would have done is change a policy.

So which is the best way to 'stimulate' the economy?

I'd say the tax cuts, but then we're dealing with a Speaker of the House who believes that food stamp handouts "bring a bigger return than the tax cuts." No wonder the stimulus bill passed.

Of course, I'm reminded of the quote from President Ronald Reagan who said:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Another 'story' on the bogus Food Stamp Challenge

Yes, tying in with Thanksgiving and religion, here's another story from a reporter at The Blade about the 'suffering' he endured while taking the bogus Food Stamp Challenge.

He repeats the assertion - a false one - that you can live on $23 a week, but not in a healthy way. Too bad he didn't read my blog post before embarking upon this ridiculous marketing/lobbying stunt, otherwise, he would have known how to pick healthy foods on a limited budget...kind of like what millions of us do every day - and not just one week of the year.

"It turned out to be a week of doing without.

No juice. No Diet Coke. No coffee. No English muffins. No dessert. No bottled water."

Oh my! If I'm dependent upon the generosity of others to be able to eat, I might have to do without pop, coffee, English muffins and dessert? How TERRIBLE!

By the way, when I demonstrated the ludicrous nature of this stunt, I was able to buy several packs of Jello - plenty dessert for one person for several weeks.

And to go without bottled water??? Oh the humanity! Um...perhaps he hasn't read his own paper enough to know that Toledo has some of the best drinking water in the nation. Why would you need to purchase bottled anything if you can get it for free?

Additionally, he writes:

"While I was struggling through the week, however, I knew I was only going to do it for seven days. For too many people, living on a $23 grocery budget isn't a seven-day test, it's a way of life."

Here's where the whole 'reporting' thing falls apart. No one gets $23 a week to live on if they get Food Stamps. That is just the average and it supplements what families already have to spend. According to the USDA website, if you're a single person without any other source of income, you'd actually get $40.51 per week - which is actually 173% more than the $23 being used in the bogus challenge. That's $176 per month, and you get it all at once at the beginning of the month on a debit card - which means you have the ability to purchase many things in bulk, cook meals ahead of time and divide and freeze them, ensuring enough healthy meals for the entire month.

So why didn't the reporters participating in this bogus challenge actually look at the facts? Why didn't they do a simple search to see if the dollar amount was accurate? Did they just take the information provided in a press release as 'gospel'?

More insidiously, did they research the information and then ignore it so they could do the story designed to appeal to our hearts rather than to our minds? Are they so easily duped into participation because they want to 'feel' rather than 'think'? Or did they purposefully ignore the facts in order to promote the not-so-hidden agenda of lobbyists?

Either they're ignorant or deceitful - you decide. But the worst part about this whole thing is that the purpose of the 'challenge' is to fail. They don't want to know how it can be done, they want 'evidence' of how it can't. Then the Food Research and Action Center can take this evidence to Washington and lobby for more handouts.

Fellow blogger Tom Blumer followed up on this story with a post on Newsbusters.org. I think he says it all when he writes:

What I said back in March, with minor updating, still holds:

Those who have a problem with benefit levels need to tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the formulas that reduce Maximum Allotments, and work with federal legislators to change them. But instead of doing that constructive work, politicians and advocates have spent over a year taking part in media-grandstanding “Food Stamp Challenges” and other silly exercises, all based on the bogus assumption, without providing any proof, that the net benefit is "all that participants have for food." By insisting on (excuse the expression) feeding us this garbage, they’ve squandered their credibility. If they really believe that Food Stamp recipients are being shortchanged, they have, by posturing on a false premise, helped to perpetuate that situation, and have done nothing to alleviate it.

Here's a better challenge to The Blade: use some of your reporters to actually report on the situation rather than be pawns in a marketing campaign; have someone observe grocery stores and see what people using the Food Stamp cards actually purchase; interview those people to find out why they bought what they did and how they plan to prepare it; don't accept a press release as 'gospel,' even in the religion section of the paper; be a newspaper - not a propaganda machine. We'll all be better off as a result, including those who have little to live on.

Bogus 'food stamp challege' is back - with a twist

Yes, it's that time again when various organizations and entities start in with their bogus 'food stamp challenge.'

The idea is to 'challenge' various elected officials and media to live on $23 during a one-week period of time. The $23 is the average supplemental support that families on food stamps get - per person.

I've covered this issue in depth, starting with why the media was blind to the food stamp challenge, what the real goal of the 'challenge' is, what sponsors of the challenge say about it, and my suggestions for a BETTER food stamp challenge.

When this bogus challenge was issued last year, bloggers and media rightly debunked it, showed it as a lobbying effort disguised as outreach and demonstrated how it was possible to live on this amount, even though no one - repeat NO ONE - has to live on this dollar amount a week when they are on food stamps.

So what's a group to do in light of these facts? They add a twist. In light of the undeniable facts, they say you can live on this amount of money, but not healthily.

"Critics of the challenge have said that it does not accurately reflect the amount of money some food stamp recipients receive and that the program is intended to be a supplement, not a family's entire food budget.

As the Rev. Steve Anthony, executive director of Toledo Area Ministries, pointed out when I agreed to the challenge, the budget makes eating healthy foods very difficult.

"You'll find that in order to fill your stomach you will have to resort to cheap, starchy foods," he warned me. "It won't be a problem getting the volume. It's getting the nutrition.""

So now it's not about being able to live, it's about being able to purchase a healthy diet.

But even that is false. As I demonstrated in my BETTER Food Stamp Challenge, I was able to purchase vegetables and fruit - even Jello - with my $21 (the amount of the challenge last year):

There's nothing special in my purchases, but I was able to get canned vegetables and fruit, plenty of pasta, spaghetti sauce, tomato sauce, tuna fish, and even Jello. And, if I'd had the extra $14.67 that a food stamp recipient would actually have, I would have bought the following:

* whole chicken for $3.86 (good for several meals for one)
* one pound of ground beef for $2.79
* two pork chops for $1.50
* quart of milk for $1.49 (I don't need much)
* 5 bananas for $.88
* one head of lettuce for $.99
* one loaf of bread for $.92
* a dozen eggs for $1.49
* one pound of carrots $.75

...proving that one person can comfortably survive in a healthy way on the amount of food stamps benefits they receive. In fact, I'd have plenty of left-overs to allow me to shop for more fresh fruit, vegetables and cheese the next week. There's just no way that I'd use all of the pasta, mac & cheese, Jello, peanut butter or all-purpose flour/pancake mix in just one week.

And the fact that my purchases in the second week would give me greater flexibility in developing a healthy menu is a point conveniently overlooked in a one-week challenge.

There are three things to remember about this bogus challenge:

1) It's all about getting people to advocate for more money to be spent on handouts. Some will characterize my use of the term 'handout' as mean, inappropriate or something worse. But that's what it is. Taxpayers are paying for recipients to be able to purchase food, despite the fact that many of us already help the poor on our own. This challenge is sponsored by groups who spend a large part of their time advocating for more money for this program. It's a marketing gimmick for a lobbying effort - and it is a disservice to the recipients.

2) When government controls the money you use to purchase your food, they will expand to control what you can buy with that money, making people slaves to the bureaucracy that always knows better than you do. Food stamps can only be used to purchase food items - that makes sense. However, as today's Blade article shows, various groups are putting pressure on government to increase the amount of control over what people buy.

"Dr. Jonathan Shenkin, a pediatric dentist in Bangor, Maine, and president-elect of the Maine Dental Association, recently called for soda pop to be added to the list of items that can't be purchased with food stamps.

"Younger children that have been introduced to soda have a much higher risk of developing tooth decay than children that have not been exposed to soda," said Dr. Shenkin.
...
He said taxpayers should not have to subsidize poor nutrition "and then pay again for the health care expenses that are associated with it," such as tooth problems and obesity. "Nobody is taking away choice. You have the choice to buy it with your own money," Dr. Shenkin said."

See?

3) Government knows only expansion of a program, and recipients gladly participate in that process. In this instance, what people are getting is never enough. People who are dependent upon the largess of others shouldn't have to be restricted in what they get. No, they should be able to have what others have, without having to work to get it. Sound familiar?

As the Blade reporter wrote:

My colleague, Blade Religion Editor David Yonke, who also participated in the challenge, said he did not experience hunger, but described the week as "a matter of living without options."

He continued, "I couldn't buy name-brand grocery items. I couldn't afford fast food, let alone a restaurant meal. I had to do without a lot of the things I take for granted, like soda pop and coffee and an occasional candy bar."

Will the next expansion be some 'right' of food stamp recipients to have coffee and an occasional candy bar? Are they somehow discriminated against because they can't purchase a fast food meal, so the program has to allow for such luxury?

And rather than tell me what it's like to live during this bogus challenge, I'd like to know what it is these 'participants' have done since then to help address the problem? Do they make a point of spending $10 each time they go to the grocery store to purchase some extra food to drop off to the food bank? Do they donate funds to food banks or other programs that feed the needy? Do they change their behavior? Or do they just write about it and hold press conferences on it - being used as pawns in this marketing gimmick and calling it a day?

If you really want to help people who need such help - do so. With your own funds or time or talents that you have. But don't fall prey to lobbying efforts and then use them as an excuse to take more money from the dwindling supply the rest of us have.

A BETTER Food Stamp Challenge

Well, I'm again writing about this bogus "Food Stamp Challenge" in which elected and community leaders are challenged to live on $21 per person per week, which is the average amount of food stamps that recipients receive.

(Background is available here, here and here.)

Sadly, as $21 is the average, it's nowhere near accurate to say that a person on food stamps ONLY gets $21 per week - as the challenge attempts to imply. In fact, an individual with no other sources of income actually would get $35.67 per week. But, to be honest about the challenge means that you might actually succeed in living solely on food stamps - and that wouldn't jibe with this national campaign to 'prove' that the food stamp program needs more money - as is being debated in Congress.

But the Toledo Blade, goes right along with the story, today devoting a significant amount of column inches in 'reporting' about how difficult our commissioners had it on only $21. While not actually issuing a correction to their original story, they did clarify the truth about the amount of benefits:

"Mark Lino is an economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the food assistance program. He said that the $21 figure used in such challenges may be an accurate representation of the average received by food stamp recipients, but the figure doesn't include other income that would be used for food in such circumstances."

But even with clarification, they missed an opportunity to add context to a quote. They report:

"Mr. Lino said that the USDA estimates that, using national averages for food costs, it would take $126 per week to feed a family of four using a nutritious diet that conforms to the USDA's food pyramid."

But they neglect to state that a family of four, with no other sources of income, would receive $518 per month - $129.50 per week - which is more than the USDA estimates a family would need.

And the end result of this little experiment? Good question.

Rev. Kevin Perrine, program director of Toledo Area Ministry Feed Your Neighbor Program, said that they were trying to "make the leaders more aware of this issue, that it's in Toledo, and that it's something very prevalent right now." Which seems to imply that these three commissioners were not aware of the fact that many families in Toledo utilize the food stamp program through the county's department of Job & Family Services - a department they oversee. Or, if they were aware - which seems more likely, they've 'felt the pain' of living on a small amount of money.

In this respect, they were highly successful.

"If it wasn't for the generosity of others, we wouldn't have made it," Mrs. (Tina Skeldon) Wozniak said. "Two people invited us over for dinner. The neighbors across the street brought us fresh veggies from their garden. And later in the week, they brought us some bananas."

""I ran out of food," Mr. (Ben) Konop said yesterday. "I ran out of turkey. All I have left is granola bars." ... He ran out of food, he said, even though he fasted for 24 hours over the weekend for religious reasons."

And what happens now is that either they join in the effort to increase the funding for food stamps, and/or they go back to their normal buying habits.

Now, if they advocate for more funding, they can feel good about themselves for actually 'doing something' to help - but, with this scenario, they've "helped" by using other people's resources, as increased funding can only come from us, the taxpayers.

And what about those who use food stamps - or the individuals and families who don't use food stamps but do take advantage of the generosity of others when they visit their local food bank? Again, good question.

These individuals have no better idea (than they already did) about how to use their limited dollars efficiently or wisely to provide healthy and nutritious meals. And the food banks, while having this temporary blip in p.r., will still continue to struggle with meeting the demands of their clients.

But, to prove a point, here's a photo of the 31 food items I was able to purchase for $21.28. (I was a bit over, but figured that if a person didn't have an extra 28 cents, they could have purchased one less Jello.)
And just to prove my cost, here's a photo of the receipt. There's nothing special in my purchases, but I was able to get canned vegetables and fruit, plenty of pasta, spaghetti sauce, tomato sauce, tuna fish, and even Jello. And, if I'd had the extra $14.67 that a food stamp recipient would actually have, I would have bought the following:

* whole chicken for $3.86 (good for several meals for one)
* one pound of ground beef for $2.79
* two pork chops for $1.50
* quart of milk for $1.49 (I don't need much)
* 5 bananas for $.88
* one head of lettuce for $.99
* one loaf of bread for $.92
* a dozen eggs for $1.49
* one pound of carrots $.75

...proving that one person can comfortably survive in a healthy way on the amount of food stamps benefits they receive. In fact, I'd have plenty of left-overs to allow me to shop for more fresh fruit, vegetables and cheese the next week. There's just no way that I'd use all of the pasta, mac & cheese, Jello, peanut butter or all-purpose flour/pancake mix in just one week.

And the fact that my purchases in the second week would give me greater flexibility in developing a healthy menu is a point conveniently overlooked in a one-week challenge.

So here's my BETTER food stamp challenge. If the government takes an additional, say $21, for lack of better dollar amount, of taxes from each of us and dedicates that to the food stamp program, the end result, after deducting for bureaucracy and processing through the federal government to the state government to the local county offices, would certainly be less than $21.

So I challenge each and every one of you - take $21 and purchase appropriate goods and donate them to your favorite food bank or similar program. And make a commitment to do so on whatever regular basis you can. That's what I've done. Instead of just 'struggling' through a fake challenge, put your money where your mouth is. That will certainly do more to help those in need than some silly publicity stunt.

Interview with "Food Stamp Challenge" sponsor - pawns or partners?

As explained here, Fred LeFebvre, morning show host on WSPD, interviewed Reverends Kevin Perrine and Steve Anthony of Toledo Area Ministries' "Feed Your Neighbor" program regarding their sponsorship of the "Food Stamp Challenge" which our three County Commissioners accepted. (Here is the link to the full 16-minute interview.)

Before I go further, let me clearly state that Toledo Area Ministries is a terrific organization doing many good things in our community. While they have several outreach programs with records of success, the one I'm most familiar with is "Suitably Attired," a non-profit organization that provides clients with free interview or work appropriate attire. In collaboration with Monroe St. United Methodist Church, they also helped launch "Dress Right," a professional clothing closet for men. I have donated to both programs.

However, having transcribed the questions and answers from this morning's interview, when it comes to the Food Stamp Challenge, I cannot decide if they are pawns in this nationwide publicity stunt to generate emotional support for an increased food stamp funding - or knowing accomplices who didn't expect their data to be challenged and then underestimated the reaction when it was shown to be incorrect. I'd like to believe they are just pawns, but some of their answers indicate that they were well aware of the appeal to emotion in order to influence the national legislation.

They acknowledged that the idea for the local challenge came as a result of an email from FRAC (Food Research and Action Center). When asked about the source of the $21 per day per person amount, which is identified as the average that a person on food stamps receives in benefits, they agreed that it was an average, but said that the actual amount was $23, but "they lowered it...but that's not the point of the challenge."

(Aside: so they knew it was more than $21 but they lowered it by $2 for what reason?)

Fred followed up with a question about what the point was, then, considering that Commissioner Ben Konop said the "point was...to fail." The reply was that the point was "to create empathy with those who do have to be on food stamps, number one, and number two is to call attention to the fact that after people are getting their food stamps we’re still seeing people come in – to the rate of 5-6,000 people a month - into our food pantries for additional assistance."

As for their second point, it is true and valid. Many individuals utilize our local food banks and the food banks, considering our local economy, are seeing more people than in the past as well as a reduction in donations. But, by saying that the point was to generate empathy, they are admitting that the underlying premise is to show this is not only difficult, but nearly impossible...which means that the challenge is designed for failure.

When Fred asked whether or not, then, the $21 was deceptive, they answered that the point with the commissioners was "to show them what they can do to get into action – what they can do with the farm bill at a national level and at a state level..."

So they acknowledge the purpose was to generate support for additional funding in the 2007 Farm Bill, and to enlist the help of the commissioners in doing so.

But just to be sure, Fred clarified the point. "So the bottom line is to get the commissioners involved … to petition the government to raise more money for the food stamp program?"

"Well, it’s not only that," was the answer, "but it’s also ... so they can also pass on what they see locally to the people they know."

So, again, we want the commissioners to prove this incorrect figure of $21 is just not enough and then tell their story to our Congressional representatives. Yes - it's all a well-coordinated national campaign to provide 'evidence' that the food stamp program needs more money.

When Fred asked them how they felt about being involved in program that would try to sway public opinion using lies and dishonesty as this one obviously does, they didn't answer the question.

They did say, "...no ... I don’t ... our motivation for doing this has nothing to do with deception or dishonesty – we’re calling attention to a problem and the problem is our food pantries are running out of food because the need is greater now than it has been and we’re just calling attention that."

In other words, don't question the facts, just look at the motivation...we're trying to do something good. Don't judge this by anything other than our intentions.

Then there is this exchange:

Rev. Anthony: "...we’re not asking for more money for the food stamp program – that’s not the point."

Fred: "Well, that’s what Kevin said just a minute ago – they want the County Commissioners to press the government to put more money into the Farm Bill for the food stamp program…"

Rev. Perrine: "well, yes…"

Fred: "Is that right or not? Did I misstate what you said?"

Rev. Perrine: "no – no you did not. But even though they can become – that’s what we want to do - we want them to be aware that that’s out there…to open their eyes to what’s going on in the community and so they know what they need to do ... so they can call the people that they know to help ..."

So 'they know what they need to do?' I guess the outcome is pre-determined - they are going to fail and then the only option will be to lobby for more money...because if these 'leaders' can't survive, obviously no one else can, either.

Of course, without a good explanation for the faulty and deliberately deceptive $21 amount, and with the entire premise of the challenge being false, they questioned Fred as to his 'empirical data' showing that no one is actually expected to live on just $21 per week. Rev. Anthony then concluding, "I don't accept your premise," and Fred responding, "I could say the same thing to you."

Fred believes they were somewhat duped. And that may be true. I think it's more likely that they understood the purpose was to influence Congress to put more money into the food stamp program, but they really didn't think about the political or public relations ramifications of someone pointing out that this was just a publicity stunt.

And then, when evidence was presented that the $21 amount was intentionally false in order to have more chance of failing the challenge, they did what most do when caught in a similar situation - they issued an emotional appeal to their INTENTIONS, implying that since the motivation was good, we should just overlook the falsities upon which the stunt is based.

Sadly, by not being honest about the intent and the goal of failing, and then asking us to just overlook those things because of the 'need,' they've done more harm than good to their stated intent of bringing attention to the plight of the food banks.

Further, we all know it's very easy to clamor for more money at the government trough. It's much more challenging to successfully identify actual solutions. Someone who truly wants to help the poor would be less concerned with suffering for the sake of suffering and, instead, focused on trying to find innovative ways to live on a meager budget. What the public is going to see from all this is 1) publicity for the Commissioners who 'feel the pain,' 2)a short-term media blip for the local food banks and pantries, and 3) the feeling of being used by a national organization in their own personal lobbying efforts. And that isn't going to do much for our neighbors who, when all is said and done, are still struggling.

We're experiencing a publicity stunt with a goal of failure instead of having meaningful conversations. Where is the discussion of subsidies for ethanol production? They're driving up the price of corn which is used in so many products, thus making those products more expensive and further stretching the budgets of all, but especially the poor. Or discussing recipes and cooking methods to make limited dollars go further. Or how to shop wisely to meet both your budget and your health needs. Or why 40% of eligible people don't enroll in the food stamp program. We're spending tax dollars in an effort to get them into a government dependency instead of learning and celebrating why they're doing okay without one.

I am grateful for the Reverends and the work they do. They agreed to come on the show and to explain the challenge. The Commissioners, however, wouldn't. I think they'd rather say they were 'just responding to the challenge' ... leaving TAM to take the full brunt of the rightful criticism of this publicity stunt. But if our Commissioners were a bit more attentive, they would have asked many of the questions we all have PRIOR to accepting - and the result would have been a more honest and open appeal to the public. But that may be expecting too much of them.

The Reverends are correct, however, that this has brought conversation about the issue into the limelight. I'm just not certain this is the conversation they expected - or the one we need to have.

In defense of the "Food Stamp Challenge"

Fred LeFebvre, morning show host on WSPD, had representatives from the Toledo Area Ministries' Feed Your Neighbor program as his guests this morning.

They accepted his invitation to come on air to discuss the "Food Stamp Challenge" they issued to our Lucas County Commissioners. (Background available here.) When the podcast is up, it will be available here. I'll be transcribing it and then will blog about some of their comments.

Sadly, it's plainly evident from their interview that they have been used as pawns in the wider political game of national politics, clearly admitting that the purpose of this stunt was to invoke sympathy and support for expansion of the Food Stamp Program, while failing to understand the implications of such a statement. They made several other statements which caused me concern, but I'll wait for the podcast before listing them, as I want to be sure of what I heard.

Unfortunately, by starting this 'challenge' with an incorrect premise (the $21 per week per person amount) and having failure as a goal, they've done more damage than good. Individuals who need this type of assistance - and there are certainly more than there should be, especially in Lucas County - don't need 'sympathy.' But making people comfortable in their poverty, rather than helping them with food plans and purchasing strategy, is what this mindset is all about...

More to follow.

Media blind to 'food stamp challenge' manipulation

On Tuesday, the Lucas County Commissioners decided to accept, from Toledo Area Ministries, the 'food stamp challenge.' Under this 'challenge,' elected and community leaders are encouraged to live on only $21 per week, which is the 'average' amount a person on food stamps receives in benefits.

Of course, our commissioners, Tina Skeldon-Wozniak, Pete Gerken and Ben Konop accepted the challenge - in front of tv cameras and assorted press.

But the problem is that the challenge is bogus. And because I'd read BizzyBlog's posting on this back in April, I knew that. And because I'd also read Ari and Jennifer Armstrong's debunking of the outcome of the challenge, I knew that it was possible to live on $21 per week.

But here are the facts. No one in the country is expected to live on only $21 a week. The maximum amount of food stamps a person can get - having no other income or resources - is $36.57. Those who get "only" $21 per week have been determined to need only $21 based upon a comprehensive formula which shows other funds (up to 30% of wages/other cash assets) available to be devoted to purchasing food.

But, knowing that this 'challenge' started some time ago, I couldn't help but wonder why our commissioners were just getting around to it. Having been in politics in Lucas County too long, I knew there had to be more to the issue than just their desire to "show empathy" for those less fortunate. So I did some research.

A simple google search provided enough links to connect the dots. The primary sponsor of the challenge is a group called Food Research and Action Center and they have several links on their website to the challenge, including all the media and internet coverage of those who've accepted the challenge. They even provide a toolkit, produced jointly by them and The Hatcher Group, a "a public affairs firm that connects nonprofits and foundations to policymakers and the media. We focus exclusively on progressive policy issues and work to advance our clients' agendas for social change."

Interestingly enough, under FRAC's legislation link is a letter to "anti-hunger allies" encouraging them to support two bills in Congress to increase funding for the food stamp program. Their letter even includes talking points reiterating the $21 per week figure.

So, curiosity getting the better of me, I wondered if there was any connection between our local organizations and this national group...and that answer was quickly found. The Toledo Area Ministries "Feed Your Neighbor" program website has a feature called "10 Food Stamp Outreach Ideas for Faith-Based Organizations" and, at the bottom of this list, are some links - including one to FRAC.

In case you're wondering, TAM was one of 14 organizations nationwide to receive a USDA grant for Food Stamp Outreach. The maximum amount an agency could get was $75,000 and TAM received $73,809 to train volunteers on how to pre-screen food stamp applicants and provide application assistance.

Those are the dots...connecting them leads to this:

A national non-profit begins a publicity campaign to draw attention to the food stamp program and calls it the "Food Stamp Challenge." National group links to local groups and pulls them into the stunt by getting them to enroll local elected and community leaders in the challenge. Local leaders 'prove' the point that you can't live on $21 a week and, even if you can survive, you can't do so in a healthy way. Local groups report back to National group who then uses all these local 'examples' and numerous media reports as evidence that the Food Stamp program needs more money. National group then testifies about the program and the need for more money, using the sympathy gained from 'challenges' across the country to urge Congress to act accordingly.

Connecting the dots wasn't hard to do...all it took was a couple of hours on the internet searching and reading. And it leads to several conclusions.

Our County Commissioners are either ignorant or deceitful. Either they were ignorant of the national publicity stunt and it's intended purpose or they knew the ulterior motive and failed to share it with the public when they accepted the challenge.

If they claim ignorance, it makes me wonder what else they're ignorant of and makes me question their ability to actually research issues on which they vote. If they knew the ulterior motive - to generate public sympathy for legislation and provide false evidence that $21 is not enough - they should have been honest about their purpose, admitting so upfront. But instead you have Comm. Gerken insisting 'it's not a publicity stunt.'

But this entire challenge isn't about honesty. It's about manipulation. It's about generating false data to prove a point. The $21 a week amount is so obviously bogus that there can be no excuse for our commissioners to not have questioned the amount. Such an error is further compounded by the fact that local Job and Family Services staff - who actually administer the food stamp program in Lucas County under control and direction of the commissioners - are participating. And they - more than anyone else - know that no one is expected to live on $21 a week for food.

Additionally, the challenge was accepted under false pretenses. They didn't accept the challenge with concept of actually succeeding. They're trying to prove it CAN'T be done. Commissioner Konop actually said, "The whole point ... is to fail." Well, obviously! Any success wouldn't look good to those using the 'failures' as justification for more funding. This was manipulation at its finest - or worst.

But the real tragedy is the media's reaction and coverage of this stunt. No one questioned the amount. No one asked why they're were using the 'average' or even what conditions would exist for someone to get just the 'average.' No one researched this to find out that such challenges were going on across the country, sponsored primarily by FRAC. And no one connected the dots to the overall plan of generating media stories to support a particular position regarding food stamp legislation in the U.S. Congress.

Except me, as part of my substitute hosting on Eye on Toledo, and WSPD's other talk show hosts, Fred LeFebvre and Brian Wilson.

All the other media did was record the press conference and then dutifully play the recordings or write the story. I even wrote an email to the reporter who covered the initial story for The Blade:

In today's story on the commissioner's food stamp challenge, you wrote:

"But for the next week, Tina Skeldon Wozniak, commissioner president, Pete Gerken, and Ben Konop have pledged to live as the least among their constituents do, spending the same amount - $21 a week per person - that the U.S. government believes is adequate to feed themselves."

However, this is not correct. The U.S. government does not believe that $21 is adequate to feed an individual. Actually, the amount a single person with no other resources can receive is $35.67. The $21 amount is the 'average' because most people who receive a food-stamp supplements have other income. In fact, food stamp recipients are expected to spend about 30% of their resources on food.

You, and The Blade, missed an opportunity to truly educate the public about this issue by accepting the information presented without verifying the actual numbers.

But it wasn't just The Blade, every outlet that has covered the issue, so far, has done so as presented - generating the 'appeal to emotion' so needed by the organizers to gain public support for increased funding.

Sadly, the lack of inquiry - or any simple investigation of what was presented - put them in the position of willingly, or ignorantly, perpetuating the manipulation.

The point now is to hold all of them accountable. Call the commissioners and your favorite media and ask them why they're reporting, falsely, that people are expected to live on only $21 per week. Ask them why they're not reporting that this 'challenge' is part of a national media campaign to push for more funding in bills currently under consideration in Congress. Ask them why the point of the 'challenge' is to FAIL rather than SUCCEED.

And while you're at it, you can ask the commissioners if any of their JFS staff explained to them that $21 might be an average but that no one in the county lives on just $21 per week. And you can also ask them how this helps economic development - a promise that all of them made when campaigning.

UPDATE: This morning, Fred LeFebvre, the morning show host on WSPD, detailed his shopping yesterday to prove that a single person could eat on $21 per week - if they had to. He put photos of the food and receipts on his WSPD page and detailed, in the show, how the food he bought could provide him with nutritious meals for a week. He then donated the food to a local food pantry.

Additionally, Tom at BizzyBlog has published his open letter to The Blade requesting a correction of their wording on the $21 per person per week amount. Check them out!