Lawmakers in both Missouri and Kansas have put forth new bills that will seek to further regulate recipient’s use of welfare and food stamp funds. Critics, however, argue that both bills will only stigmatize the poor and exacerbate misconceptions about food stamp recipients.

Missouri state lawmakers have introduced a new bill that they hope will prevent welfare users from purchasing luxury food items such as sushi, lobster or steak. “I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards,” explained Missouri State Rep. Rick Brattin. “When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either,” he added. This is deemed food stamp abuse. House Bill No. 813, mandates that “a recipient of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits shall not use such benefits to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak.” According to Rick Brattin, these restrictions would simply “get the food stamp program back to its original intent, which is nutrition assistance,” by encouraging food stamp recipients to choose healthier options and increasing oversight to prevent excessive purchase of unnecessary items.

Missouri is not the only state in 2015 to seek to curb such excesses. The Kansas state legislature introduced an even more restrictive bill aimed at welfare recipients. House Bill No. 2258 has made it through the legislature and is expected to be signed into law by Republican governor, Sam Brownback. Contained in the bill are several regulations aimed at inducing people to “spend more responsibly” by limiting how Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash, colloquially food stamps, are used. It prevents TANF cash from being used to purchase alcohol, tobacco, concert tickets, or sporting event tickets. The bill would also prevent TANF cash from being used in “any retail liquor store, casino, gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor . . . movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, [or] dog or horse racing facility.”

The stigma associated with SNAP, TANF and other welfare programs are well documented. The traditional image is of the welfare participant who shamelessly refuses to work while living a lavish lifestyle at the expense of the upstanding and hardworking taxpayer. In 2013, Fox Nation featured Jason Greenslate, a 29-year-old, unemployed surfer, who received SNAP benefits each month, which he used to purchase sushi. “This is the way I want to live[,] and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said as he smiled into the camera. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.” There is no doubt Greenslate was using his SNAP benefits to buy Sushi. But let’s put aside the mystery of how Mr. Greenslate affords, on the SNAP maximum monthly allotment of $194 for a single person, enough expensive foods to survive. Is Mr. Greenslate the norm or simply an aberration? Are taxpayers being stiffed by welfare recipients who use taxpayer dollars to splurge on opulent delicacies? Is Rick Battin right? Do we need more stringent regulations to curb welfare abuse?

                  Opponents of these proposals assert that the stereotypical lazy welfare recipient who refuses to work and enjoys a lavish lifestyle on the taxpayers’ dime is not reflective of the majority of the participants. “There’s virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way,” argues Emily Badger. “The idea that they do defies Maslow’s hierarchy—the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages.” A study released by the Department of Labor revealed that welfare recipients spent more than 77 percent of their budgets on necessities like food, housing, and transportation. They were also less likely own a house or car and that the poor spent less on eating out and on entertainment. Another study showed that “SNAP recipients spend over 85 percent of benefits on fruits and vegetables, grains, dairy, meat, and meat alternatives.” The more rare abuses are then the more difficult and costly it will be for the government to find those abusing the system. Further, buying healthy foods like fruits and vegetables may cost more and at first and appear abusive. Yet, to the extent these foods, improve health and thus reduce future spending on food stamp recipients medical care through Medicaid, Medicare and other programs these are features, not bugs, of the food stamp system.

Other critics claim that these regulations are evidence of an obvious bias that exists against the poor. “This is less about public policy than about demeaning public-benefit recipients,” argues Dana Millbank. Critics assert that bills like the ones proposed in Kansas and Missouri are just another way to stigmatize and dehumanize the poor. Furthermore, it is argued that other groups who receive government aid do not typically face the same stigma. This treatment appears to be reserved solely for the poor, and it is a clear double standard. “We don’t drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies . . . we don’t require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they’re pursuing a degree that will get them a real job . . . [and] we don’t require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don’t use their homes as brothels,” argues Emily Badger. Even though the government extends a considerable amount of money in the form of farm subsidies and tax expenditures, lawmakers devote little time crafting regulations aimed at abuses of those programs. Further rarely is the money extended to farmers or homeowners described as a government handout or as unearned money taken from upstanding taxpayers and given to underserving individuals. As such, regulations aimed at welfare recipients are often much more stringent and in a category of their own. According to Emily Badger this justifies states asking recipients to “prove themselves worthy that they spend government money how the government wants them to, that they waive their privacy and personal freedom to get it.”