Changes Coming to Wisconsin Food Program

 

From Fox 6 Now:

Fraud... Who Cares?

Major changes coming soon to Wisconsin’s FoodShare program.

Starting April 1st, FoodShare recipients ages 18 to 49 (who do not have any minor children) will be required to work for their benefits.

The work requirement rules will affect members who have a renewal or apply for FoodShare benefits on and after April 1st, 2015.

If you are an adult age 18 through 49, there are four ways you can meet your work requirement:

  1. Work at least 80 hours each month.
  2. Take part in an allowable work program such as FSET, Wisconsin Works (W-2) or certain programs under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) at least 80 hours each month.
  3. Both work and take part in an allowable work program for a combined total of at least 80 hours each month.
  4. Take part in and meet the requirements of a workfare program.

Those who choose not to meet the work requirement will only get three months of FoodShare benefits in a 36-month (three-year) period until they meet the work requirement, become exempt, or the 36-month period has passed.

Able-bodied adults will be enrolled in FSET when their case comes up for annual review and will then be eligible to receive FoodShare for 90 days in any 36-month period. The 90 days do not need to be consecutive, but once reached, a FoodShare recipient’s case is automatically closed.

Opponents say cutting off benefits will increase visits to local food pantries and soup kitchens. Some are worried those resources will run dry.

“In April of 2016, we anticipate that our network of charities will begin to experience food shortage,” Hunger Task Force Executive Director Sherrie Tussler said.

According to the Hunger Task Force, at least 66,000 people in Wisconsin will be affected by the changes.

 

~~~~~~~~~Scott Walker 04

Leave it to Wisconsin, Scott Walker’s state, to get the ball rolling. This is a good start and they need to focus on all those stay-at-home moms who make a career out of living off the government and then go after the frauds on disability.

On the flip side, watch for the affected women to start making babies any minute now.

~Kathy

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Changes Coming to Wisconsin Food Program

  1. Adrienne says:

    I work with young never married mothers who, while working full-time, still receive food stamps. The boyfriend lives with them and so they actually have two full time salaries, but his doesn’t count. They have plenty of money for tattoos, gym memberships, and nights out at the bars because the taxpayers buy a bunch of their food.

    • Kathy says:

      Good to hear from you Adrienne! Take your example and add it to thousands more who are doing the same thing. We see it all the time in all 50 states.

      I routinely see women in the check out line at the grocery store who pay part of their bill with food stamps of some kind, then pull out a huge wad of cash to pay for the other stuff. They’re later seen in the parking lot loading their groceries into brand new vehicles.

  2. Clyde says:

    Watch for leftist heads to explode in 3…2…1 Michigan tried this a few years back, but when Granmole was governor, she, with MUCH fanfare, ended it.

    • Kathy says:

      Of course, she ended it – it puts people on a path to self-sufficiency and lightens the state’s load – that’s not part of their plan. Think about the good it could have done in Dearbornistan.

  3. captbogus2 says:

    Are you EFFING kidding me? All this is going to do is trigger even more out of wedlock babies…

  4. CW says:

    If the people receiving free food are able to work why not just help them get permanent jobs? Give them free food only when they are in short-term job training or working with job placement services to find permanent jobs.

    As Buck alluded to, you can’t solve this problem until you also deal with all of the free-loading baby mamas out there. Set up orphanages if need be but take away the free-loaders’ golden tickets to welfare. If they truly love their children and want them back they can certainly have them when they can support them.

  5. tannngl says:

    Thanks for this report, Kathy. This is just a start. I agree, next big cut in unemployment and SSI.

  6. Uriel says:

    Strategies to Empower People (STEP)

    Children and Family Services, Economic Stability Office
    The goal of the Strategies to Empower People (STEP) Program is to provide opportunities for work-eligible families of FITAP to receive job training, employment and supportive services to enable them to become self-sufficient. STEP is the result of the Personal Responsibility and Universal Engagement Act of 2003 passed by the Louisiana Legislature.

    Louisiana has had this for over 10 years. And is required for 18-60 year olds

    • Kathy says:

      Good info, Uriel. This is an issue states need to focus more attention on until these people realize it’s not a way of life.

      There’s also a lot of muttering about the drug screening of welfare recipients, but I see no problem with it.

  7. Uriel says:

    In addition I Think I was told in the 1990’s that unwed teens or moms have to show paternity with blood tests on every child supposedly each male is then contacted and funds taken in support of the child. Additionally, funds are received only for a max of 3 children. As yet I have not been able to confirm this but I did see in action a couple of examples. Funds are withheld until Step compliance is confirmed and monitored. Of course here we have conundrum of rules versus funds to run the program. These depts. are understaffed

  8. Uriel says:

    Adrienne, Louisiana has come down hard on this issue by law. But again I am not certain how well it is investigated. They may be relying on fraud whistle blowers to help.

  9. Garnet92 says:

    Let me first say that I don’t know any conservative who is against funding assistance to someone who genuinely needs it, but I suspect that we’re all against these baby-factories whose occupation is making babies for profit. That crap has to stop. These requirements don’t sound unreasonable to me and I would support them or something like Louisiana’s version.