In a hearing much less contentious than one held last week that resulted in a pair of legislators leaving the meeting in disgust, the House Health and Wealth Committee voted to remove the asset test from people seeking to receive food stamps from the federal government.
The asset test, which Gov. Butch Otter suspended for one year as of May 1, 2009, measured the amount of physical property owned by food stamp applicants prior to approval of entry into the aid program. Physical property is classified as second vehicles, RVs, boats, and ATVs.
Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, voted for the removal of the test in its subcommittee hearing before asking the full panel to hear it last Friday. Luker said that though he does support the temporary removal of the asset test, the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW), which administers the food stamp program, must reconfigure the program’s parameters for qualification. According to DHW, food stamp use in Idaho is rising.
“It is an important part of the process, but it does need updating,” said Luker. ”We want people to be personally responsible, and food stamps are not an insurance policy against financial loss.”
The Senate voted to approve the removal of the asset test last week.
(Note: Read about the asset test’s first subcommittee hearing here)
“It is an important part of the process, but it does need updating,” said Luker. ”We want people to be personally responsible, and food stamps are not an insurance policy against financial loss.”
What a paradoxical statement. And just how in the hell is Luker going to make “people to be personally responsible” if they can keep their boats, ATVs, dirt bikes, RVs, snowmobiles etc., buy gas with their own money, but let the taxpayers feed them.
Well, Luker is very much in favor of retooling and reapplying the asset test. In the subcommittee hearing he took time to almost-scold two younger (mid-20s) females who claimed food stamps are helping them build a savings. I believe the only reason Luker voted for it is simply because the program will end in May.
I would just like to clarify something. I testified at the subcommittee hearing and I feel as though my statement was taken out of context. I am by no means using food stamps to build a savings. If anything I am at a need to merely to maintain some sort of stability. I have an income of $800 a month, that hardly covers my every day needs like rent, gas, insurance, and utilities. I do not like that I am in a place where I need to ask for assistance, quite frankly it is embarrassing and demoralizing. My statement was just trying to paint a picture of what it feels like to be in this position. I don’t feel like anybody owes me anything, but the options I am left with have me hitting a wall. I believe this is true for many others in my community. The idea is to help each other.
Instead of asking Idahoans to deplete all assets they have in order to receive assistance I was asking that we give them the opportunity to bounce back quicker.