The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
‘For too long, this loophole has been used to effectively bypass important eligibility guidelines. Too often, states have misused this flexibility without restraint.’
getting school meals, and make it harder for states to administer food assistance.”
Current federal guidelines forbid people who make more than 130 percent of the poverty level from getting food stamps. But many states believe the cap is too restrictive, especially in cities with a high cost of living, prompting them to bypass the limits.
At issue is a federal policy that allows people who receive benefits through other government programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, to automatically qualify for the food aid program known as SNAP. The practice, called categorical eligibility, is intended partly to reduce duplicative paperwork. It has also allowed states to grant food stamps to more people.
In 2009, Obama’s Agriculture Department sent a memo to its regional directors encouraging states to adopt what it termed as “broad-based categorical eligibility” for food stamps by providing applicants with a minimal TANF-funded benefit such as an informational pamphlet or telephone hotline. Among other things, Obama’s administration said the expanded eligibility could help families stung by a weak economy and promote savings among low-income households.
Most states adopted the strategy. Thirty states and the District of Columbia are using income limits higher than the federal standard of $1,316 monthly for an individual or $2,252 for a family of three. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have either waived asset limits entirely or set them above federal thresholds, according to the Agriculture Department.
The department’s inspector general has raised concerns about the tactic. It also came under public scrutiny last year after self-described millionaire Rob Undersander testified before the Minnesota Legislature that he and his wife had legally received about $6,000 in food stamps over 19 months because his considerable assets and Individual Retirement Account withdrawals didn’t count against his eligibility.
Undersander said he had been trying to make a point — not game the system.
“I think that states just found this loophole, and then I think they’ve been abusing a loophole,”