Updated: Dec 12, 2019
The lawyers at our Current Administration are planning to deprive 3 million people from Nutritional Assistance. Thanks to Samantha Bee I learned that we have a few weeks to make comments about the situation. You can read the Doublespeak Jargon and comment at the links below.
Here's My Comment Tracking Number: 1k3-9b99-b1j3
Here's My Comment:
There is plenty of money to help us all, and you know it. The proposal is a cruel joke because the people affected by it are not equipped to understand, nor do they have the skills to stand up for themselves.
This proposal is a cruel insult to all people, literate in the English language, because as usual, it is not written in plain English. This is another farce written in Legalese by lawyers meant to obfuscate intentions and apparently turn more American children into future wage slaves, due to lack of proper NUTRITION when growing up in poverty, while watching their parental role models fight and/or destroy themselves out of frustration with a futile system of humun usury.
A government “By the People” wouldn’t throw so many people under the bus.
Here’s an idea, when using words like “audit” and “rulemaking,” why not AUDIT our national leaders and let the people off the hook? Why do the poorest of the poor have to pay for the sins of the RULEMAKERS?
The department has an obligation to expend taxpayer funds in a fiscally responsible manner … and in alignment with the intent of the Food and Nutrition Act to alleviate hunger among low-income households. Prior rulemaking regarding categorical eligibility was intended to use the STREAMLINED APPROACH
You call the prior rulemaking approach streamlined? Too many people standing in too many long lines, in pain and suffering, while overworked and underpaid social workers break under the stress of not being allowed to fulfill their purpose in life- to help the needy. This Prior Streamlined Approach that you speak of is a cruel system that uses its dedicated workers and the helpless so-called “clients.” While you are busy Streamlining our pockets I suggest you do the same to Agribiz, the PharmaBiz and the other two or three monopolies you have allowed to exist, “To rule us all.”
Obligation to “the taxpayer.” Last I heard the entities most able to pay taxes, do not. If the most able paid, then we could have a truly “free society,” because people would be happy, fed and industrious instead of being desperate, hungry and disenfranchised, like we are now.
…The Department has seen that, given the significant operational flexibilities inherent in TANF-funded programs, current regulations are insufficient to achieve this goal. believes that instituting an ongoing and substantial threshold for both cash and non-cash TANF benefits, as described below, is an appropriate way to achieve this goal.
There’s that goal again. Using words to build up this case. Building words on words. This is pure Lawyerese and it is unconscionable. “She’s a witch if she floats, innocent if she drowns.”
There it is. The Ultimate “Catch 22.”
1. Extending categorical eligibility to participants who have not been screened for eligibility compromises program integrity and reduces public confidence that benefits are being provided to eligible households.
This says more red tape; more delays; more frustration; more attrition by difficulty.
• 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and a net income equal to or lower than 100% of the FPL in order to be eligible for SNAP.
I do not know what this means for me, but no matter because it is too low. I live on $9,000 per year.
• (1) To provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes; (2) to reduce the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
1-“Cared for in their own homes” – What does that have to do with nutrition?
2-Where would these hypothetical children be if not at home?
2-Promoting jobs. When you cut people off, they haven’t the will to fight for low wage slave jobs.
3-Why is it the business of SNAP to “prevent and reduce the incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies?
4-Why is it the business of SNAP to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
“…Department wishes to further strengthen the requirements through this rulemaking to ensure that TANF-funded programs conferring categorical eligibility align more closely with SNAP eligibility standards outlined in the Food and Nutrition Act.
Does STRENGTHEN REQUIREMENTS mean take away benefits from those marginal people who need this program to get their families through the month?
The Food and Nutrition Act does not provide Nutrition, only calories, since it does not provide enough money to buy organic food, which contains actual NUTRITION.
Making NEW RULES to ENFORCE stuff does not feed people.
This feels like a desperate measure designed to inflate and inflame a political agenda. Please, do not do more harm.