IBJNews

Food restrictions back in Indiana welfare bill draft

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A contentious measure to screen and drug-test some welfare recipients and to limit food-stamp use to only "nutritional" foods has resurfaced in the Indiana General Assembly with little time left to vote on the bill.

Bill author Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, reinstated provisions in a proposal circulated Wednesday to screen all applicants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for the likelihood of addiction. Certain applicants then would be drug-ested.

The draft also adds back in a ban on buying foods not deemed "nutritional" by the state — such as sugary drinks or candy — with money from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Senate changes to the bill eliminated the food benefits restrictions and limited drug tests to only applicants with prior drug convictions.

The constitutionality and feasibility of addiction screening and limits on SNAP benefits have been questioned as the bill moved through the House and Senate.

Critics say the bill would unfairly target the poor, while supporters argue it safeguards taxpayer dollars from being used to buy drugs and increases accountability for public assistance recipients.

The Legislature is expected to conclude its session Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Resp to Elaine
    Right off the top: I've never collected a single cent in any program that is considered "welfare". Some tax credits, yes, and a Pell Grant during first semester of college. But the total balance is waaaaay in the favor of the Government, especially the State.---On the programs themselves: they are a response to the economy. Recessions with high unemployment are meant to be "temporary", yet we still have a persistent one. I'm sure we could have a lively discussion of the causes, but the fact that we are still in the slump is the reason why States NEED to maintain these programs. There aren't enough good paying jobs for all that would need them.---Everyone wants to cut waste. But the proposals won't do it, any more than voter ID laws have stemmed fraud. All it manages to do is make life harder for those that need assistance, or vote in the case of the ID laws.
  • Don't We All Make Choices?
    I read the outline of "drug testing" recipients, and it's a complete waste of time. Making restrictions on the type of food that can be used as nutritional supplement is an excellent idea. For one thing, it might cut down on obesity rates. Watching kids come into the store and swipe their benefits card to get a soda and bag of chips is not helping anyone. I can attest as a fully functioning adult who grew up poor but without food stamps that my family went without such foods, and I turned out fine. My esteem is in tact. Offer families nutritious healthy food. If they don't want it, they don't have to take it.
  • What's your answer MarkusR?
    You seem to have a better idea in mind to keep the lid on this system intended to assist TEMPORARILY, folks that need a hand. I'd sure like to hear it. Your response seems to indicate you may be a "user" of the system and don't want anyone making waves. The madness of government waste (and I mean TRUE WASTE, not helping the disadvantaged) has to be stemmed. I can't afford it.
  • Torn
    I'm very torn on this particular issue. I've been behind people in line who were buying HUGE cakes and attempting to use foodstamps and I overheard that the rationale was for a child who was dying. I've also been behind people who were using foodstamps to buy lots of food (ribs, barbecue sauce and individual bags of Fritos) that they very proudly said they were going to cook and sell in their yards. In addition, I've been behind the people who were told they couldn't buy dog food with their benefits and then said to one of the children, "OK, go back and buy a big package of ground beef. We'll just cook that for the dogs..." A very difficult issue with which to deal, I will agree...
  • Welfare Reform
    Welfare should be used as It was intended. It's common knowledge that there are a significant number or recipients who milk the system to varying degrees. Would passing a properly constructed bill inconvenience some people? Possibly, but not as much as holding down whatever job necessary to get off he welfare rolls. I think we as a country are compassionate people as a whole, but that compassion ends for those who are able but wish to live off other peoples hard work.
  • Other programs have this
    When it comes to the food aspect of this bill, it makes complete sense. If you are receiving government funds for food that's fine, but you should be spending it on food that won't create other problems with your health. Look at the WIC program that families/single parents use. You are restricted to certain items.
  • Maybe it doesn't go far enough
    What? No requirement to wear a burlap sack so that the better-off folks can feel superior? And, I guess the cost of administering the screening and testing will come out of Jud's own pocket book?

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    2. If you only knew....

    3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

    4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

    5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

    ADVERTISEMENT