Michigan Dems Make It Easier For Hungry People To Get Food

By eliminating this one unnecessary means test!

This week, Michigan Democrats decided to nix a particularly unhelpful means test for food assistance in their state — one that wasn't really saving anyone any money and which would likely cost taxpayers more money in the long run.

In a party line vote of 56-53, the Michigan House voted in favor of Senate Bill 35 , which will stop the state health department from considering a family's assets when they apply for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This can include their "cash on hand, checking and savings accounts, investments and property." The bill, if signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, would put Michigan in line with the majority of the country, as 36 other states do not have an asset test either.

According to the House Fiscal Agency’s analysis , the bill would not have any impact on the state financially, because SNAP eligibility is already largely determined by income and there is already a (less restrictive, admittedly) federal asset test in place to determine eligibility. It would, however, lighten the load on health department case workers, allowing them to direct their attention to things that actually matter and help people.

Naturally, Republicans in the House think the bill is bad and that it will lead to people getting state dollars that they don't deserve. That is because they don't actually care that this kind of means test costs more than it saves, since their main goal is to punish people for seeking assistance.

The fact is, it is just easier and less expensive, in the long run, to help people out of a ditch than it is to drag them up from "rock bottom." We don't want people who lose their jobs to immediately sell their homes and deplete all of their assets in order to be able to eat. Why? Because it's less expensive, less disruptive, and better for the economy in the long run for them to get a little bit of help for a short while until they get another job that pays them enough to feed themselves and their family than it would be to successfully help them once they have absolutely nothing.

In many cases, where there is a steep cutoff, people are afraid to accept better opportunities for fear of immediately losing their benefits. When I was on unemployment, I almost lost my benefits for turning down a job to manage a retail store with no air conditioning for $10 an hour, an hour away from me on public transit, and which I was told would also require me to appear on a reality show they were pitching — and as a result ended up being far more cautious about which jobs I applied to. It's not exactly similar, but it shows how giving people a little legroom with these things can actually make them more effective.

Means testing can also make things so confusing for people who really need help, so that when they finally do, they need more help than they would have otherwise. Again, this is more expensive in the long run.

There is also the fact that bureaucracy and administration cost time and money, and thus don't always end up saving us all that much to begin with. We have to pay people to do means testing, to be sure that someone's house isn't worth too much or to check up on their investments — so the meager amount the state might be saving here gets eaten up by that cost.

We can probably assume that Gretchen Whitmer, being a nice governor who likes nice things, is going to sign the bill in the next week, so that is something for families in Michigan to look forward to.

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!