In their continuing effort to make theirs the worst state in the Union, Arizona Republicans want to require food-stamp recipients to carry bright-orange identification cards with large black lettering, as opposed to the current, debit-style cards:
[A] Chandler Republican lawmaker wants the debit cards now given to food-stamp recipients to be bright safety orange. And if there's any doubt what the card pulled out of someone's wallet at the checkout is, that would be erased by the words "Government Food Stamp Card" stamped across it in large black print.
First-term Rep. Jeff Dial said his goal is not to stigmatize those who qualify for the aid, formally known as the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Instead, Dial said he wants to prevent fraud.
"If that does concern people that they have a bright orange card, I hope they go get a better education or better jobs and stop using that card," he said.
Dial doesn't want to stigmatize poor people; he just wants everyone to know that they're poor, and that they should be shunned for their laziness and irresponsibility.
What makes this worse is that stigmatizing works and keeps people from taking needed benefits. Nationwide, 76 percent of seniors who receive benefits report feelings of stigma, and according to a recent survey from the Government Accounting Office, this has been identified as a major reason for their low participation rates in SNAP and other food security programs.
Arizona Republicans aren't the only ones who want to stigmatize the poor for their misfortune; last year, for example, Sen. Orrin Hatch called for mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients, and Dave Camp -- Republican chair of the House Ways & Means Committee -- wants to investigate improper Earned Income Tax Credit payments. Presumably, we should be outraged when low-income people get a little more than they "deserve."
To be fair, my preference is for a system that attaches zero moral weight to receiving benefits and opts for a straight cash transfer, rather than a complicated system of targeted benefits. And by that standard, most things are iffy, if not a little objectionable. Still, I'm always a little surprised by the vigor with which some politicians attack the least well-off. At times, it crosses the line from political opposition and into contempt. That is, instead of neglecting the poor, they're actively working against their interests. To a degree, that's to be expected from the avowed representatives of privilege. Still, it's no less despicable.
