![\"Untitleda\"](\"https:\/\/live-journal-of-law-and-public-policy.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Untitleda.png\")
Opponents of these proposals assert that the stereotypical lazy welfare recipient who refuses to work and enjoys a lavish lifestyle on the taxpayers\u2019 dime is not reflective of the majority of the participants. \u201cThere\u2019s virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way,\u201d <\/span>argues<\/a> Emily Badger. \u201cThe idea that they do defies Maslow\u2019s hierarchy\u2014the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages.\u201d A <\/span>study<\/a> released by the <\/span>Department of Labor<\/a> revealed that welfare recipients spent more than 77 percent of their budgets on necessities like food, housing, and transportation. They were also less likely own a house or car and that the poor spent less on eating out and on entertainment. Another <\/span>study<\/a> showed that \u201cSNAP recipients spend over 85 percent of benefits on fruits and vegetables, grains, dairy, meat, and meat alternatives.\u201d The more rare abuses are then the more difficult and costly it will be for the government to find those abusing the system. Further, buying healthy foods like <\/span>fruits and vegetables may cost more<\/a> and at first and appear abusive. Yet, to the extent these foods, improve health and thus reduce future spending on food stamp recipients medical care through Medicaid, Medicare and other programs these are features, not bugs, of the food stamp system.<\/span>\n\n![\"Untitledrural\"](\"https:\/\/live-journal-of-law-and-public-policy.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Untitledrural.png\")
\n\nOther critics claim that these regulations are evidence of an obvious bias that exists against the poor. \u201cThis is less about public policy than about demeaning public-benefit recipients,\u201d argues<\/a> Dana Millbank. Critics assert that bills like the ones proposed in Kansas and Missouri are just another way to stigmatize and dehumanize the poor. Furthermore, it is argued that other groups who receive government aid do not typically face the same stigma. This treatment appears to be reserved solely for the poor, and it is a clear double standard. \u201cWe don\u2019t drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies . . . we don\u2019t require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they\u2019re pursuing a degree that will get them a real job . . . [and] we don\u2019t require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don\u2019t use their homes as brothels,\u201d argues<\/a> Emily Badger. Even though the government extends a considerable amount of money in the form of farm subsidies<\/a> and tax expenditures<\/a>, lawmakers devote little time crafting regulations aimed at abuses of those programs. Further rarely is the money extended to farmers or homeowners described as a government handout or as unearned money taken from upstanding taxpayers and given to underserving individuals. As such, regulations aimed at welfare recipients are often much more stringent and in a category of their own. According to<\/a> Emily Badger this justifies states asking recipients to \u201cprove themselves worthy that they spend government money how the government wants them to, that they waive their privacy and personal freedom to get it.\u201d\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"New state regulations on spending are designed to curb food stamp abuse. But are these prescriptions for change worse than the problem? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1964,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-feature","category-feature-img"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1963","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1963\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1964"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}