Author: kg4vma

(…getting food on the table can be a) SNAP

The following was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

Choose one of the public policy issues discussed in Lesson 7 (poverty, corporate welfare, or outsourcing), do some additional research on your chosen topic, and present your findings here.

How did your chosen public policy come about?

What crisis created it?

Has this policy been effective?

How would you modify it if you were the president?

Remember to present facts, not opinion, and include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit. Provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

In an attempt to combat some of the issues of poverty and guarantee a certain quality of life among the impoverished various governmental policies agencies and resources have been established. The bulk of these public welfare policies and resources have roots in the programs created in Roosevelt’s New Deal response to the effects of the Great Depression. One such program is SNAP–the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

During the depression era two issues had risen relating to the consumption of agriculturally based goods; there were many families that were incapable of purchasing as many goods; accordingly, there had grown a surplus of goods in some areas as there were too few consumers making these purchases. In response, a Food Stamp Program–FSP– had been established where consumers could purchase an orange colored stamp for $1 redeemable as the equivilent value in cash for any food product.1 Upon the purchase of the orange stamp, the patron would receive a blue stamp valued at $0.50 redeemable on the purchase of food goods which had been deemed as being in excess supply.2 This program stimulated the purchase of goods that had been going to waste, and was doing so at a discounted rate, making the foods more easily available to those struggling to make grocery purchases. 

This intial Food Stamp Program ceased in 1943 as the surplus had vanished and employment rates had once again risen.3 Another program did not come into being until 1961. The direction of this verison of the program was limited to certain areas; additionally the surplus stamp was now redeemable for certain perishable goods. In 1964 this smaller pilot program was revised to make food stamps available for use on all consumable food/drink items–excluding spirits and imports–and bring about clear definitions as to which governmental bodies were responsible for the funding and distribution of the stamps.4
During the 70s era, FSP was revised numerous times. Some of the changes which took place were the establishment of certain eligibility requirements and partial reimbursement from the federal government to the state agencies to defray the costs of administering the costs on a state level. More changes to FSP came throughout the 1980s and 1990s with additional changes to eligibility–with regard to the calculations of the family or individual’s income–and the change from a paper based system to an Electronic Benefit Transfer system similar to that of ATM/debit cards.5 In 2008 the program’s name was changed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to better reflect the current program and remove some of the stigma surrounding "Food Stamps".6 SNAP benefits may be referred to by varying names, dependant upon the state government.7
Some of the current eligibility requirements for receiving SNAP benefits are an income falling below predetermined levels according to family size; household members able to work must be employed–otherwise certain disability, educational, or caregiving requirements must be met. Certain aditional eligibility requirements–especially that of income and owned property–vary by state. [See Table 1 below for size/income eligibility. See Tables 2.1 & 2.2 for formulae used for benefits calculation.]8
SNAP benefits are an invaluable resource for America’s impoverished; helping to supply our nation’s families–most notably our nation’s children–with the means necessary to ensure a healthy diet free from hunger is of great importance. As with any assitance program, however, there are those who take advantage of the opportunity; therefore there is always room for improvement. Through the constant monitoring and review of SNAP transactions, as well as the frequent review of SNAP beneficiaries, we can keep the system open and freely available to those of need.

Table 1 — Household size vs. Income Eligibility 

Household size

Gross monthly income
(130 percent of poverty)

Net monthly income
(100 percent of poverty)

1

 $1,180 $ 908

2

 1,594 1,226

3

 2,008 1,545

4

 2,422 1,863

5

 2,836 2,181

6

 3,249 2,500

7

 3,663 2,818

8

 4,077 3,136

Each additional member

 +414 +319
 [Table Source – USDA FNS SNAP Eligibilty9]

Table 2.1 — Maximum SNAP benefits according to Household Size

People in Household Maximum Monthly Allotment
1

$    200
2

$    367
3

$    526
4

$    668
5

$    793
6

$    952
7

$ 1,052
8

$ 1,202
Each additional person

$  

 [Table Source – USDA FNS SNAP Eligibilty10]

Table 2.2 — Formulae used to calculate SNAP benefits received. (Other deductions may be eligible before arriving at net monthly income. These deduction very by state.)

Benefit Computation

Example

 Multiply net income by 30%…
 (Round up)

 Subtract 30% of net income from the maximum 
 allotment for the household size…

 $1,154 net monthly income
 x .3 = $346.20 (round up to $347)

 $668 maximum allotment for 4 – $347 (30% of  
 net income) = $321, SNAP Allotment 
 for a full month

 [Table Source – USDA FNS SNAP Eligibilty11]
 

[…I refrained from going into personal opinion on this post as the instructions asked me to; a personal opinion may come later, however, if time allows…]
 
References
  1. USDA Food and Nutrition Service. "About SNAP." 12 Oct 2011. Web. Retrieved 17 Oct 2011 from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htm
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid.
  6. USDA Food and Nutrition Service. "Applicants and Recipients." 12 Oct 2011. Web. Retrieved 17 Oct 2011 from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/default.htm
  7. USDA Food and Nutrition Service. "Eligibility". 13 Oct 2011. Web. Retrieved 17 Oct 2011 from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm
  8. Ibid.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Ibid.
  11. Ibid.

[EDITED 11/8/2011 to include comments received from classroom since intial post.]

The following comments were received:

Prof. Keith Carlson:
Great job on the topic.

Ryan McFarland:
Jeremiah, you really did a great job explaining the SNAP program. I must say the program has come a long way from when it first began, but as in all programs things need to be changed still. I am all about helping people put food on the table, but there are always some who use the money for other things. I have seen people spend the money on beer and food for themselves, not the family. I do not agree with the way the money is allotted. I have seen some families get a few hundred dollars and other familes get a great deal less. That family that got less help is STILL struggling to survive.

Great use of the charts to help us visualize the stats.

Cristopher Walker:
Jeremiah,
First off, thank you. That was a great post that really taught me more about the program than I learned through my own research. The SNAP program is one of the programs that I think our government does a pretty good job on. This program does help countless families across the country by fulfilling a basic need of nourishment. I also really enjoyed the graphs because they helped put into context the amount given per family of a specific size. The only improvement of the SNAP program that I can really see is to become more strict in the enforcement of the program. Many times people will not use the supplement in a intended way. basically selling the “supplement” for other non-authorized products. Usually this is done at the detriment of the individual abusing the systems family. Though this isn’t so much a policy change as more of a local law enforcement issue. Again, great posts.

Chris

My tweets

Мои твиты

…and Justices for all…

This writing was originally submitted as a response to a homework assignment:

The Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London (Top 25 cases, #12 in Unit 5), ruled in June 2005 that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed. The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply was dwindling.

Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system. In preparing your post, you might want to read the dissent opinion by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As part of your response, you may address the aftermath (city council elections/Pfizer abandons site/etc…); but remember what the primary question is for this week's Forum discussion question:

"Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system."

Remember to cite sources used and reply to at least two of your classmates' posts.

There can be a benefit to turning assignments in late–I have greater opportunity to build my work upon that of others (which is one of the elements of education–learning from and standing upon the shoulders of those who came before). I am also able to draw upon more information and sources that have come to pass, thus giving me the ability to form a better opinion–the true point of education and forward thinking–part of the point of the Constitution as well!–to be a continuing living thing which changes and adjusts to reflect the times and knowledge gained from our past, present, and future history.

This hunger or desire to learn and think also leads to activism–if defined as looking into and pursuing the interests of a "good", which may or may not be seen as a "common good" among varying parties. Activists–political, judicial and any other -al that can thought, created or named–will tend to lean "left", "right" or possibly somewhere in the middle. So, really, who then is an activist if we all have the ability to view any given person at any time as an atcivist? I suppose this is why at times news agencies try to clarify by saying "activists for the cause"; whatever the cause may be at the time. 'Tis hard to keep them straight without a scorecard–harder still, even then.

In the case of Kelo v. New London, I cannot clearly define any activist among the lot. Maybe if we introduce the pro- prefix to activist we can better define and label those involved…

New London sought out being proactive in the community's assumed times of economic hardship. New London looked toward acquiring land in order to hand it over to Pfizer for the creation of more jobs in the area…

[…Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Let's hear it for Jobs! (…in the morning!)]

The idea is good. Take advantage of eminent domain in order to give the local economy it's own "little blue pill" which should, in theory, be in the better interests of the local public–and possibly even the greater public, I mean we're talking about a huge drug company! The sad part is in order to do so we begin to challenge numerous rights of property.

In the materials for this week we are told that traditionally upholding the rights of the state is more conservative in thinking; that "judical restraint" and giving more literal interpretation to the laws is opposite to being a "judicial activist". Challenging the state, giving new interpretation to the law, and giving more liberty to the individual would then be "activist" (but, at the same time, looking out for the many rather than the few is also seen as a liberal thought–I'm confused!). Here, in this case, the waters are muddied.

The Supreme Court sided with the state's decision. The Court ruled that the greater interest of the public outweighed that of the individual. The benefit to the public through eminent domain benefitted the private entity.

…we have conflicting ideas here. Who is the activist again?

To see the activist in this case, we should turn to the additional materials supplied for this week, and not rely upon the loose defintions given in the regular reading. Former Justice O'Conner in this–and many other–case(s) is the activist–and in some ways, the anarchist. In her dissent, O'Conner shared her views in that the Court had paved the way for the governing bodies to lay claim to any land and reshape it however deemed fit. O'Conner stated that she would rather rebell against what the majority had said, and give the rights of the land back to those who had held onto it for so many years. O'Conner–the conservative activist.

So, the question arises as to whether having a judicial activist has some adverse impact on the judicial system. The answer? Yes.

I now pose the question as to whether these "adverse" affects are negative. In my opinion, no. Having a Justice challenging their peers is a necessary "evil" in playing "devil's advocate"–in keeping the scales balanced; and in many cases, O'Conner did just that. Granted, in some of the cases that appeared before her, such as Lawrence v. Texas–a case concerning sexual acts among homosexuals–O'Conner was capable of sticking with conservative views and being liberal with the law.

In Lawrence, O'Conner agreed that having laws in place that prohibited homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional; yet O'Conner refrained from siding that these acts are a natural right. Essentially, O'Conner stated that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment outlawing sodomy for homosexuals was unfair as acts of sodomy are legal between heterosexuals. Though O'Conner supported the Court's ruling on that particular element and concurred with the ruling, she did not support the overruling of a related judgement, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld existing laws that banned sodomy regardless of orientation.

In my example, we can see that it is possible for one to be an activist without going so far as to bring about true anarchy. We can also see how it is possible for this activist to posess some of the ideas of and act as an anarchist against their peers–be them co-workers or members of the same political party–in order to level the field.

Adverse impacts do present themselves from activists in any camp on any issue. The adverseness, however, isn't always negative.

References

Bowers v. Hardwick. 478 U.S. 186. U.S. Supreme Court. 1986. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZO.html

Kelo v. New London. 545 U.S. 469. O'Conner, J. Dissent. U.S. Supreme Court. 2005. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_KeloVNewLondonDISSENT.pdf

Lawrence v. Texas. 539 U.S. 558. U.S. Supreme Court. 2003. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/558/case.html

Unknown. "Unit 5: The Supreme Court." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%205:%20The%20Supreme%20Court/Unit5_TheSupremeCourt.pdf

Мои твиты

Lyndon B. Johnson (ordering pants is more entertaining…)

Originally posted in response to a class assignment:

Listen to one of the presidential speeches listed in Lesson 4. Summarize it, then discuss what you found most convincing or important about what was said. (Do not comment on the politics of the speaker, Democrat or Republican, but on the effectiveness of their arguments or vision.) 

Was the presentation effective? 

Why do you think this speech was chosen to be used in this class as an example of this president's legacy? 

Include citations or URLs for your work to receive full credit, and provide substantive replies to the posts of at least two of your classmates.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a speech in which he shared information and viewpoints on the Vietnam War, US deficit and his decision to abstain from seeking re-election. Johnson, not necessarily known for his speaking abilities, seemed to deliver the speech without great emotion, and made attempts to share with the public his feelings that the war being waged in Vietnam was of importance and required many additional troops—this point had been made at the beginning and came back toward the conclusion of his address. In the middle of Johnson’s speech came talk of how the United States was facing a great deficit due to over-spending of the government. Johnson proposed that the government listen to his pleas to decrease spending and raise taxes—which shouldn’t have come at much cost considering the status of employment and wages amongst the public—to counteract this deficit.

What seemed to boggle my mind about the address was the transitions from Vietnam to the budget, and then finally returning to Vietnam. Johnson’s poor segue to the budget from Vietnam came directly on the heels of saying that there would be a need for the increase in spending to support our efforts and interests in the conflict. In an effort to change the view, there was an attempt to express that the world was looking upon the US during the conflict as a world power with an inability to keep its’ own budget in check. I would suppose that this maneuver was an attempt to garner the favor of those fearing the red menace; however to my knowledge many Americans had stopped buying into the domino theories of the spread of communism. Additionally the country was experiencing much civil unrest and was less than enthused with our involvement elsewhere.

Not only had the public began to lose favor of Johnson over Vietnam, but they were also beginning to see an end come to establishment of some of the plans that he and his predecessor, Kennedy, had been attempting to work on. Though Johnson had seen many of the “Great Society” dreams come to fruition attitudes had begun to change in the public and in the Congress.

In listening to Johnson, I heard a plea—a plea for the public to understand his vision, and a plea for the now Republican strong Congress to back him. In his plea, however, he also seemed to recognize his defeat.

Finalizing his speech, Johnson stated that his tasks were too great for him to take the time to run for a re-election. Though the words he spoke said that he had a greater interest in running the war than hitting the pavement for the next election parade, the undertone—the subtext surrounding his unwillingness to seek or accept nomination from the DNC—said that he saw that he was failing in the eyes of the public. The words also seemed to echo that he could see that he, himself, was failing as well—Johnson died a few days after what would’ve been the end of his second term, had he been re-elected.

Was Johnson’s speech effective? I don’t believe so. Johnson’s speech was, in my opinion, a downer. Granted, not every presidential address is a pep-rally; however, when facing troubles and low public opinion, one would think that including some high-points or bragging rights would give good balance. Instead, Johnson elected to keep to the topics he had in mind.

Johnson can be remembered for many different things throughout his Presidency. Some remember him as the Vice-President who had been thrust into the Presidency due to the tragic murder of Kennedy—and then some think that he may have played a role in that plot. Some may remember him for seeing some of Kennedy’s visions through, and for pushing his own agendas for education. Some may also remember him as pushing hard for the Vietnam War. Many don’t remember him at all.

I would suspect that Johnson, and this speech, were chosen as material for us to review in this class because Johnson is amongst one of the forgotten presidents. I would say that if one were to poll young school-age children (who have actually gotten a worthy course in US history) none would really know of LBJ, aside from the fact that he had finished Kennedy’s term. Even in some programs I have watched on television I have seen the documentaries jump from Kennedy to Nixon.

I believe that it is also possible that this speech was included in the material because of the many similarities that pundits have drawn between Johnson and President Obama. Obama, like Johnson, has challenges to face in the worlds of healthcare and education. Obama, like Johnson, has come into office with fairly high ratings and zeal. Obama, like Johnson, faces some civil unrest and a public which has fallen unsure in certain areas. The differences between the two, however, lie in the fact that Obama faces a poor economy and LBJ faced the Vietnam War. In Johnson’s fight in Vietnam he lost and is now a spec in our history. In Obama’s quest, will he favor any better?

Ultimately, however, I believe that the speech was included so that we may hear the final section, where the President announces that he is not going to seek re-election. I come to this conclusion as the material supplied for the class reads, “Note: Scroll to the very end to hear his decision.”

[…personally, I believe that likening W. to LBJ would be better. I see W. becoming a forgotten president, with the only memorable part being the events surrounding 9/11. Speaking of 9/11, W. and LBJ also have a bit in common with Vietnam and the “war on terror” …but who compares a Democrat to a Republican and vice versa?]

References

Johnson, L. B. “The President's Address to the Nation Announcing Steps To Limit the War in Vietnam and Reporting His Decision Not To Seek Reelection. Washington, D.C., 31 March 1968. Audio. Retrieved 11 Oct 2011 from: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.php?id=28772&admin=36

Unknown. "Unit 4: The Executive Branch." 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 10 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%204:%20The%20Executive%20Branch/Unit4_TheExecutiveBranch.pdf

…and to see what I'm referencing in the title of this post: