Anti-hunger advocates say new laws passed this session will make more Minnesotans eligible for food support, and food shelves will get a boost, too.
Beginning Nov. 1, about 70,000 more Minnesotans will be eligible for food aid when the $7,000 asset limit is eliminated and the gross income test raised from $24,000 for a family of three to $30,000.
Hunger Solutions Minnesota says these changes are in line with many other states and mean families that lost jobs will not have to spend down their assets to get food aid.
The Legislature also approved a $400,000 one-time emergency allocation to food shelves, to be distriibuted in July, the group said.
Said Colleen Moriarty, executive director of Hunger Solutions Minnesota:
“Our elected officials heard from people on the front lines all across the state. They heard loud and clear about the challenges faced by hard working Minnesota families and by the food shelves that meet their hunger needs. We really appreciate the unflagging support of Rep. John Benson and Rep. Karen Clark. We know they had to make tough budget decisions.”
I can’t question the decision to raise income limits for a family of three to $30,000. I simply don’t have the information to make that call.
I can and do question the decision to completely eliminate asset caps. The statute in question limited “financial resources”, exclusive of vehicles, to $7,000. While there might be an argument in favor of raising the cap, eliminating it makes no sense to me at all. There simply is no valid reason a family with tens of thousands in liquid assets should be provided with federal funds to purchase food. The purpose of such programs should be to provide a level support at basis levels, not to support a middle class life style.
Even those organizations which favor elimination of caps acknowldedge the existence of alternatives:
“Incremental improvements: The existence of an asset limit, no matter how high, sends a signal to program applicants and participants that asset building should be avoided. However, if a state has not yet eliminated asset limits entirely, it can take several intermediate steps.
States can increase asset limits and/or index them to inflation, thereby lessening the likelihood that participants or applicants will reach the limit.
States can exempt certain classes of assets from their asset limits, particularly in the TANF and Medicaid programs.2 While most programs exclude some “illiquid” assets, such as a home or defined benefit pension, many other liquid holdings, such as defined contribution retirement accounts (e.g., 401(k)s), health savings accounts, education savings accounts (529s and Coverdells) or Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), often count against the asset limit in TANF and Medicaid. States should exempt these types of assets. In addition, vehicles, which are vital for many to find and maintain employment, should be exempted.3 States should also exempt Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) refunds for at least a year to offer protection from emergencies and unexpected expenses.4”
The argument made in support of the elimination of caps is as meaningless as its oppposite, made in support of the elimination of SNAP altogether, that it undermines personal responsibility. The fact that the necessary funds will come from the Feds is irrelevant. We have an obligation to spend all funds responsibly.
It is legislation such as this that fuels Tax Party radicals and rightfully so, unfortunately.