Comments to the Ways and Means and Agriculture Committees on SNAP
Regarding the Joint Hearing with Agriculture on SNAP today, I have a few comments.
I am actually getting SNAP and am looking for work. Luckily, I have someplace to sleep, so it is easier to job search. What is a real disincentive to finding a job is not having a place to stay, but not having one.
The problem with SNAP is not that it discourages work, its that it is not enough to live on and contains cash component. If people had cash as part of support, they could go to job interviews and to work – and could work more freely if the income caps were raised.
The other problem is that a lot of low wage workers don’t know they are eligible. At least Wal-Mart helps them apply, even though this looks bad. What we really need is more support for not working, especially for families with kids. Then wages would go up and more people who don’t work, but who don’thave family obligations, would re-enter the workforce.
Part of me is lying – in that if all benefits were adequate, I would likely stay home and blog on tax policy all the time – but would also gladly take any paid job in tax policy – since such jobs can be a platform to share ideas. Most of my fellow beneficiaries would just watch TV, but that gets old if jobs are available to them.
Produce a big enough economy, say with a subtraction VAT, and a deduction from the payment for hiring someone currently subsisting on relief, and employers may bite rather than simply reject applicanst with a hole in their work history and we can but the canard of the lazy welfare cheat to bed.
The other economic issue on benefits, including such comments as a Citizens Dividend from Land Value Taxes or a Basic Income from using Mondern Monetary Theory (printing money) is that all three allow workers to not work until the wage is high enough. Now, if you believe your job is to support employers and consumers, you probably don't want that. If your job is to preserve human dignity and the rights of workers (who are also both consumers and voters), then you would raise the income from now working, rather than decreasing it.
There are plenty of new activists and voters supporting the Senator from Vermont who would rather make a full tilt attack at capitalism itself and the right of CEOs to set pay for workers (and through crony boards of directors, for themselves) to justify looking for ways to save capitalism by focusing on the needs of workers and the poor.
I am actually getting SNAP and am looking for work. Luckily, I have someplace to sleep, so it is easier to job search. What is a real disincentive to finding a job is not having a place to stay, but not having one.
The problem with SNAP is not that it discourages work, its that it is not enough to live on and contains cash component. If people had cash as part of support, they could go to job interviews and to work – and could work more freely if the income caps were raised.
The other problem is that a lot of low wage workers don’t know they are eligible. At least Wal-Mart helps them apply, even though this looks bad. What we really need is more support for not working, especially for families with kids. Then wages would go up and more people who don’t work, but who don’thave family obligations, would re-enter the workforce.
Part of me is lying – in that if all benefits were adequate, I would likely stay home and blog on tax policy all the time – but would also gladly take any paid job in tax policy – since such jobs can be a platform to share ideas. Most of my fellow beneficiaries would just watch TV, but that gets old if jobs are available to them.
Produce a big enough economy, say with a subtraction VAT, and a deduction from the payment for hiring someone currently subsisting on relief, and employers may bite rather than simply reject applicanst with a hole in their work history and we can but the canard of the lazy welfare cheat to bed.
The other economic issue on benefits, including such comments as a Citizens Dividend from Land Value Taxes or a Basic Income from using Mondern Monetary Theory (printing money) is that all three allow workers to not work until the wage is high enough. Now, if you believe your job is to support employers and consumers, you probably don't want that. If your job is to preserve human dignity and the rights of workers (who are also both consumers and voters), then you would raise the income from now working, rather than decreasing it.
There are plenty of new activists and voters supporting the Senator from Vermont who would rather make a full tilt attack at capitalism itself and the right of CEOs to set pay for workers (and through crony boards of directors, for themselves) to justify looking for ways to save capitalism by focusing on the needs of workers and the poor.
posted by Michael Bindner at 2:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home