From Oct. 2013 to Oct. 2014, food stamp use in California increased from 4.2 million people to 4.6 million, or 8.5 percent.

Only Nevada increased at a faster clip, 9.4 percent. Also high were: West Virginia, 3.3 percent; Florida, 3.6 percent; New Jersey, 3 percent; New Mexico, 4.6 percent; and North Carolina, 5.6 percent.

Most states saw declines, with three states in double digits: Wyoming, -13.6 percent; Maine, -10.7 percen; Kansas, -10.5 percent. The national average was -1.6 percent.

Kansas is significant because there has been a national debate, including on this website, of Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax cuts, which have produced budget cuts to anti-poverty programs, while also bringing deficits. In particular, economics writer David Cay Johnston, in Al Jazeera, excoriated Browback and Kansas and praised California for raising taxes. Johnston wrote:

“Now, thanks to recent tax cuts in Kansas and tax hikes in California, we have real-world tests of this idea. So far, the results do not support Laffer’s insistence that lower tax rates always result in more and better-paying jobs. In fact, Kansas’ tax cuts produced much slower job and wage growth than in California.”

I showed evidence contradicting that contention in the original article. Now we have even more evidence the Kansas tax-cut model, much more than the California high-tax model, better helps poor people. Well, how then can cutting government programs for the poor help the poor? Because lower taxes mean businesses create more jobs — for everybody, including the poor.

Look at those food stamp numbers again: high-tax California, up 8 percent. Low-tax Kansas, down 10.5 percent.

Well, at least in California, in Coastal areas the poor don’t have to buy heavy winter clothing.

The Los Angeles Times provided plenty of anecdotes about the cuts in its story about the program:

“The impoverished are forced to eat junk if we want to eat,” said 32-year-old Tabitha, a mother of a 2-year-old and a 7-year-old staying at a Culver City shelter, who asked that her last name not be used because she said she was embarrassed. “It’s going to be difficult, as it already has been. …”

Friday’s benefit reduction was meant to coincide with a brightening economy, yet many Americans remain stuck in poverty despite improvements from the worst of the recession.

“I think it’s a horrible thing,” said Najuah Mudahy, 30, also of the Culver City shelter, a food stamp recipient who works two jobs, as a clerk at a shoe store and a hostess at a California Pizza Kitchen. Both bring in $9 an hour. Mudahy said she runs out of money to keep her 3-year-old daughter fed before the end of every month, even on dinners of canned soup.

 “It only forces people to do desperate things,” she said of the cuts.

SNAP has grown dramatically in recent years. Around 19 million Americans received benefits in 2002. By 2007, 7 million more Americans were enrolled in the program. And by 2012, 47 million Americans were enrolled in the expanded program. Costs ballooned from $35 billion in 2007 to $80 billion in 2012.

Increase

So why the dramatic increase?

Two reasons: the economic recession and policy changes that made it easier to enroll in the program. The Washington Post explains:

Defenders of the program typically argue that enrollment rose because we had a horrific recession and unemployment hit the stratosphere. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is supposed to kick in to help families hit by economic distress. The program has kept 4.7 million people out of poverty. There’s no problem here. And so on.

Some conservatives, meanwhile, have emphasized that a big chunk of the increase is due to policy changes by Washington. In 2008, Congress allowed states to relax their standards for who could join the program. (Jobless adults could stay in the program if they lived in high-unemployment areas, for instance.) Then, as part of the 2009 stimulus bill, Congress temporarily boosted food-stamp benefits.

The cuts that began at the start of this month were mandatory; the expansion was only set to last for so long. But more cuts might be coming in the future. The House and Senate are currently debating how much to cut SNAP. Conservatives are arguing for more restrictions about who can join the program.

From the Washington Post:

The House bill would remove 3.8 million people from the food-stamp rolls over the upcoming year by making two big changes:

— First, it would reinstate limits on benefits for able-bodied, childless adults aged 18 to 50. These recipients would only be able to collect limited benefits — up to three months over a three-year period — unless they worked more than 20 hours per week or enrolled in job-training programs. (States are currently able to waive these latter requirements when unemployment is high.)

Conservatives have argued that reinstating the work requirements will encourage adults to find jobs more quickly. Liberal critics have countered that employment opportunities are still scarce in many parts of the country — many Americans will simply lose their food aid without finding work. This change would remove an estimated 1.7 million people from the food-stamp rolls.

— The second big change is that the House bill would restrict states’ abilities to determine a person’s eligibility for food stamps based in part on whether they qualify for other low-income benefits. This is known as “categorical eligibility” and has generally allowed families just above the poverty line to receive food stamps if they have unusually high housing costs or are facing other hardships.

This second change would take another 2.1 million people off food stamps in 2014 and then remove an additional 1.8 million people per year for the next decade.

It’s unclear how many of these cuts will actually get passed into law, however, since the House and Senate still have to figure out how to reconcile their two bills.

CalWatchdog.com will continue covering changes to SNAP in the upcoming months as farm bill negotiations continue.

By Chris Reed

A Democratic congresswoman from California wants you to know she cares about some poor people — the ones who use food stamps. This is from the Bee:

“Doris Matsui of Sacramento on Wednesday pledged to spend only $13.50 on food the next three days, joining nearly 30 of her fellow House Democrats in protest of cuts to the federal food stamp program.

“The Senate on Monday approved a 10-year, $955 billion farm bill that includes a $400 million a year cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. A House proposal would cut the program by $2 billion a year.

“Matsui said via Facebook and Twitter that 200,000 residents of Sacramento County rely on food assistance and that she would take part in the ‘SNAP Challenge’ and live off the average benefit of $4.50 a day.

“‘Feeding a family on SNAP is already challenging, and these cuts would make it even harder,’ Matsui wrote on her Facebook page. ‘That is why I am taking the SNAP Challenge to raise awareness of hunger in our nation and to highlight the importance of SNAP.'”

Help Central Valley farmers? Nah. Let them use food stamps to buy cake.

But does Matsui care about the  poor people who don’t want to rely on food stamps? The poor people who need not welfare but jobs — giving them regular paychecks so they can avoid being on the dole? Of course not. She’s a Democrat from Sacramento, after all — and one who turned her back on her hometown at an absolutely crucial moment.

This is what I wrote about her in June 2009 on the late lamented America’s Finest Blog:

“A Central Valley lawmaker’s crusade to move farmers ahead of fish in California’s water pecking order now has the backing of 37 House Democrats … . But when it came time for a crucial House Rules Committee vote Wednesday night on whether to allow Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, to try to attach farmer-relief language to a $32 billion Interior Department funding bill, the panel voted 8-4 to block the attempt. Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, was the only Democrat to side with Nunes, the Bee reported.

“Which prompted me to look up the 13 members of the House Rules Committee. Which led me to this fact. If Cardoza was the only rules panel Dem to back Nunes, that means Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, either voted against Nunes, abstained or missed the vote.

Mayor of Matsui’s impoverished hometown stunned at her callousness

“Given the importance of agriculture to California, this is bad already. But here’s the kicker from Matsui’s official bio. She grew up … on a farm in California’s Central Valley. Further research shows specifically she lived in Dinuba, a town in Nunes’ district, 30 miles southeast of Fresno. Where the families-in-poverty rate in 2007 was 22 percent, well more than double the national average, and is almost certainly much higher now between the recession and the environmentalist-led assault on Central Valley farming.

“Betrayals of the people you grew up among don’t get much more complete than this. Doris Matsui must not believe in karma.

“I called up Dinuba Mayor Mark Wallace. … Wallace said Nunes’ efforts to change Central Valley water policy were absolutely crucial. ‘I can’t believe that anyone would vote against this no matter who they were, especially in these tough times.’

“Wallace said he didn’t know Matsui or of her background. But he said that he ‘absolutely could not’ believe that someone from Dinuba could treat it and the Central Valley so poorly.”

Matsui did vote no on the relief. She wants farmworkers to have access to water and shade. She just doesn’t care if they actually have work on farms.

No, things haven’t gotten better in Dinuba since 2009. The most recent reports show the town has a 26.4 percent poverty rate, which is even worse than the state’s rate, which is the highest in the nation. But the congresswoman from Dinuba probably thinks that’s no big deal — at least if the impoverished people she betrayed have access to food stamps.

By Katy Grimes

It’s always good to see the California Legislature proposing more vindictive bills aimed at penalizing employers.

The new “Walmart loophole” bill, AB 880, would require large employers to “pay their fair share when they dump workers onto Medi-Cal by cutting hours or wages in order to circumvent their responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act,” according to the bill’s author Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles.

Nice.

Under Gomez’s bill, the ACA threshold for fining businesses would be lowered so that large employers would be fined if their part- or full-time workers are enrolled in Medi-Cal.

The legislation — which is supported by the California Labor Federation and United Food and Commercial Workers — “aims to encourage large businesses to offer job-based coverage.”

I’d word that a little differently. The legislation, supported by two of the largest, most aggressive labor unions in the state, aims to force large non-union businesses to cover all employees, regardless of their part-time status.

And remember the other Obamacare penalty bill I wrote about earlier this week:

AB 880, by Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, is a bill which essentially would force large businesses to offer health insurance by fining them more than the average cost of providing coverage. Money raised by AB 880 is meant to increase Medi-Cal provider rates, and to subsidize state costs for it.

“AB 880′s monetary penalty is written purposely vague but sure to be painful to business,” health care expert and lawyer Craig Gottwals with BB&T-Liberty Benefit Insurance Services told me.

“The proposed penalty on employers is based on 110 percent of the average cost of health care coverage, including both the employer’s and employee’s share of the premium.”

But these aren’t the only two bills aimed at employers. There are 27 more Obamacare-related bills, targeting employers from cutting hours, and requiring employers to maintain benefits or receive huge fines. There are bills expanding the scope of Obamacare in California. And there are 12 more bills expanding the publicly-subsidized Medi-Cal health care coverage for low-income individuals in California, under Obamacare.

There is even a bill by Sen. Ted Lieu, which penalizes for “deceptive marketing” of the benefits of Obamacare. They are leaving no stone unturned.

Another bill stops the 2011 Medi-Cal provider rate cuts from going into effect and exempts certain providers and businesses from the cut.

By Katy Grimes

The Employment Development Department used to be called the “Unemployment Department.” And state welfare recipients are now “clients.”

The majority party in the California Legislature appears determined on expanding social services in the state despite evidence demonstrating that the programs don’t necessarily improve lives, as the very mixed record of the 50-year federal “War on Poverty” confirms. While discussing the need for “safety net” programs for the poorest in the state, legislators always cast a wider net than necessary.

The Assembly held a committee hearing Wednesday about expanding mandatory universal government preschool in California. By Thursday, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee was focused on the CalWORKS program, and how to attract more “clients.” Expansion of the state’s Health and Human Services agency is an obvious goal.

CA has nation’s worst poverty rate

This push to expand government aid programs has as a backdrop California’s poverty rate of 23.5 percent — the highest in the nation and much higher than the national average of 16.1 percent. The U.S. Census Bureau said the high poverty rate was driven in part by California’s high cost of living, which is never a focus of the Legislature.

The stated goal of Thursday’s Senate hearing was to get  several questions answered, including “What does evidence indicate can help families avoid the negative consequences of poverty?”

The challenges of stress are made worse by poverty, according to Sarah Bohn of the Public Policy Institute of California and Ann Stevens, the director of UC Davis Center on Poverty Research.

Stevens said the well-known correlation between poverty in childhood and long-term effects mean poverty later in life, poor health and low educational achievement.

Subsidies for poor advocated, and more of them

“Constant stress is worse in poor people,” said Stevens. “Unobserved things in families in poverty lead to other bad outcomes.”

“Persistent poverty creates chronic stress for children,” Stevens added.

Stevens and Bohn advocated for subsidies for the poor, and for longer periods of time.

“A strong case can be made for reducing material deprivation,” Stevens said. “There’s growing credible evidence to support this.”

But both Stevens and Bohn also advocated for universal mandatory preschool. “There’s growing evidence to support intervention in early childhood and preschool,” Stevens said. She added this is crucial to break the cycle of poverty. “It’s not a trade-off,” said Stevens.

On welfare, mixed messages from Washington

Meanwhile, the federal government is sending out mixed messages. Under President Obama, one form of welfare has exponentially increased since he first took office in 2009. His administration, however, is also pressuring California to limit another type of welfare.

“When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the number of Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) recipients was 31,939,110. By October 2012, the latest month reported, they had jumped to 47,525,329,” CNS News reported. “That means the food stamp program grew by approximately 11,133 recipients per day from January 2009 to October 2012.” SNAP used to be known as the Food Stamp program.

CNS News also reported, “[F]ederal spending on SNAP has increased every fiscal year that Obama has been in office. In FY 2009 — when SNAP was still known as the ‘Food Stamp’ program — the government spent $55.6 billion. According to an April 2012 report from the Congressional Budget Office, SNAP enrollment increased by 70 percent between 2007 and 2011.”

In California, spending on such programs is going up. But the Brown administration is also trying to implement some of the welfare reforms seen in other states — because of federal pressure.

“The Governor’s budget proposes $20.3 billion from the General Fund for health programs—a 3.4 percent increase over 2012-13 estimated expenditures—and $8 billion from the General Fund for human services programs—a 7.9 percent increase over 2012-13 estimated expenditures,” the Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote in its 2013-14 “Analysis of the Health and Human Services Budget.”

Recent changes to the CalWORKs program include a phase-out of exemptions from welfare-to-work requirements, and the introduction of a new 24-month limit on adult eligibility in the program.

Existing law requires each California county to provide cash assistance and other social services to needy families through the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program. CalWORKs uses funds from the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant program, as well as state and county funds.

Reforms prompted by federal pressure

As a condition of the federal grant, the federal government requires states to meet work requirements. But California has been in violation of this rule, and was notified the state will be assessed penalties of $160 million by the federal government. This is just for 2008 and 2009. There is no word yet if California will be penalized for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

The state claims to have a plan to remedy this, but not by requiring CalWORKS recipients to get to work.

“Planned state actions are projected to increase the state’s work participation rate by (1) increasing the number of countable cases that meet the federal work requirement through the work Incentive Nutritional Suppliment program, and (2) removing from the work participation requirement calculation certain CalWORKS cases that do not meet the federal work requirement,” the LAO reported.

The LAO estimates that California “may be compliant with the requirement by 2015.”

CalWORKS recipients are required to work 20, 30, or 35 hours per week, depending on family composition. California allows CalWORKS recipients to substitute mental health and substance abuse programs for work.

CalWORKS reductions may be reversed

California has made $700 million in reductions to the CalWORKS program since 2009. But now, the Legislature is actively pushing to expand the program.

SB 1041, passed in 2012, authorized the changes to the CalWORKS program, but only through 2012.

By Katy Grimes

The U.S. economy lost more than 1.4 million jobs between December and January. But it’s almost impossible to find any reports in the mainstream media about this.

Instead, the media primarily have reported on reduced federal spending, as if that is enough of a balancing act. But the government has no choice but to make cuts as the United States now runs deficits of more than $1 trillion. It cannot continue.

Much of the media have been ignoring the truth about the economy, cherry-picking some factoids and telling outright falsehoods.

Shrinking labor force

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of the U.S. labor force “that is employed” has continually fallen since 2006.

But it gets worse.

The number of Americans “not in the labor force” more than tripled during Barack Obama’s first term in office. This number is particularly interesting because it is larger than the increase in the number of Americans “not in the labor force” during the entire decade of 1980-1990.

The mainstream media have been giddy reporting 157,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in January. But it’s the “non-seasonally adjusted” numbers — the number of Americans with a job — which actually decreased by 1,446,000 between December and January, according to Michael Snyder, an economist, attorney and author of the Economic Collapse blog. These numbers are even more important.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the labor participation number has been in a free fall since 2006:

2006: 63.1 percent employed

2007: 63.0

2008: 62.2

2009: 59.3

2010: 58.5

2011: 58.4

In January, only 57.9 percent of the civilian labor force was employed.

What does this mean?

“A 1954 Studebaker Lark has more momentum than this economy!” said CNBC’s financial expert, Rick Santelli. He noted in December that the labor force participation rate has dropped significantly since Obama was elected. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this means the number of Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work or even to seek a job increased by 8,332,000 to a record 88,839,000 in President Barack Obama’s first term.

“The people who run the country — on both sides of the aisle — they love to get elected and they also love to fib about the statistics in any way they can,” Santelli said. “Once again, I think my common phrase these days is: Shame on all of them.”

“Before Obama took office, the labor force participation rate had not been as low as 63.6 percent since 1981, the year President Ronald Reagan took over from President Jimmy Carter,” a time of deep recession, CNS News reported. Santelli noted in January the total debt that our children are currently charged with is $3.5 million per baby born today. Santelli is right. Instead of just listening to the media hype and spin, look at the numbers.

According to the BLS, in 2007 more than 146 million Americans were employed.  Today, that number has dropped to 141.6 million, even though our population has grown by about 15 million.

What recovery?

State, local and federal governments, together with the help of the media, report that we are in a “recovery.” They insist unemployment is lower than it was a couple of years ago.

But the truth is the continuing drop in the labor force. And during Obama’s first term the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11,000 per day. These statistics go hand in hand.

“When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the number of Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) recipients was 31,939,110. By October 2012, the latest month reported, they had jumped to 47,525,329,” CNS News reported. “That means the food stamp program grew by approximately 11,133 recipients per day from January 2009 to October 2012.” SNAP is formerly known as the Food Stamp program.

CNS News also reported, “[F]ederal spending on SNAP has increased every fiscal year that Obama has been in office. In FY 2009—when SNAP was still known as the ‘Food Stamp’ program—the government spent $55.6 billion. According to an April 2012 report from the Congressional Budget Office, SNAP enrollment increased by 70 percent between 2007 and 2011.”

The Obama administration, California Gov. Jerry Brown and the media have been misleading about unemployment, welfare expansion, government entitlements and the true condition of our economy. But they appear to be closely protected by much of the media.

California’s poverty rate of 23.5 percent is the highest in the nation — much higher than the national average of 16.1 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Killing off small business

Millions of small businesses are on the verge of extinction. Yet local, state and federal bureaucrats and politicians just continue to heap more taxes and fees on them, more rules and more regulations. Just since November when President Barack Obama was re-elected, the federal government has issued hundreds of new regulations.

“Get your boot off of my neck!” says one small business owner I know every time she is forced to pay another tax increase of additional license cost or fee.

A recent Gallup poll found 61 percent of all small business owners in America are worried about the potential cost of healthcare because of Obamacare. A shocking 30 percent of all small business owners in America say they are not only not hiring, but they fear that they will go out of business within the next 12 months.

“More U.S. small-business owners say they let more employees go than they hired on average over the past 12 months, for a net hiring index of -10 in January, according to the Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index,” Gallup Economy reported on Jan. 31.

Texas Governor Rick Perry recently called for returning “excess tax money” to taxpayers in his state, while California small businesses lost jobs as their taxes rose.

Yet according to the National Federation of Small Business California, small businesses account for more than 97 percent of all jobs in California.

What better way to destroy the economy than to kill off small businesses?

Spin and hype

Even bad economic news is hyped by the media as though it is good news.

In response to the news that the economy “contracted” by -0.1 percent in the final quarter of last year, Democrats touted the claim of Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist for Capital Economics, that it’s “the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you’ll ever see. The drag from defense spending and inventories is a one-off. The rest of the report is all encouraging.”

Breitbart’s John Nolte summed up the spin:

* “Politico saw the jobs numbers as something that ‘could soothe some of the renewed economic anxiety in Washington.’

* “The AP saw the jobs numbers as proof the ‘U.S. job market is proving sturdier than expected” and “mostly encouraging.’

* “CBS News wants to assure all of us that the ‘[l]atest job numbers signal economic recovery.’

* “Yahoo News says, “Don’t Be Fooled by the GDP Report: The Economy Is Gaining Strength.'”

List of bad news

Nolte made a list of the bad news far too many Americans face:

* “What you’re seeing from the media is shamelessly dishonest propaganda.

* “Poverty is increasing.

* “Gas prices have almost doubled.

* “The price of health care premiums has exploded and will only explode more (but-but-but Obama said…!)

* “Poor and middle-class incomes are falling.

* “One-in-five Americans are on food stamps.

* “The non-partisan GAO says Obama’s exploding deficit is unsustainable.

* “Eight million people are looking for work.

* “Our labor force has shrunk to 30-year levels (170,000 more dropped out last month).

* “Chronic unemployment hasn’t been this bad since before World War II.

* “The long-term unemployment rate is more than 14 percent. And if the labor force was merely the same size today as it was the day Obama took office, today’s unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent.”

When’s the last time the media talked about any of that?

By Katy Grimes

It appears that Democrats aren’t really sincere or even serious about working toward solutions that will actually help California solve the economic crisis in the state. Last week, Democrats voted against a smart consolidation program which would have provided an additional $1.3 billion to the state.

After Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that California’s budget deficit has grown to nearly $16 billion, astoundingly higher than the $9 billion deficit amount announced in January, one would assume that every California politician would be looking under every rock for money to shore-up the debt.

Apparently politics trumps economic stability.

Welfare system maze

One way to cut government is consolidating redundant services. If politicians are looking for redundancy in state government, the biggest mess  is also the most obvious: California currently has four different systems which run Medi-Cal, CalWORKS, and Food Stamp programs. Every county has its own maze of welfare programs as well.

Last week during the Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Health and Human Services hearing, Democrats moved to repeal the 2009 law directing the state to move towards a single, centralized system for Medi-Cal, CalWORKS, and Food Stamp programs.

In a 2010 report, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found “the new statewide process is intended to achieve two primary outcomes: (1) providing better service to people applying for these programs and (2) lowering administrative costs through better use of technology.”

Even with the LAO’s recommendation to consolidate, for efficiency, simplification, better record keeping, and cost savings, Democrats opposed consolidating the four state programs into one system – even with the $1.3 billion incentive from the Federal Government to do this.

With this opposition, Democrats have jeopardized much needed federal funds. This decision highlights the purely political problems involved in balancing our budget – government jobs and government spending, over efficiency and a slimmer state government.

In 2011 California applied for $1.3 billion in federal funding to streamline the four systems in the state’s largest welfare programs. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responded in April that they were approving the funding request on the condition that California consolidate the welfare system.

But Democrats said “no.”

Here’s the clip of me appearing on NBC-San Diego talking about food stamp abuse. The great host is Christine Haas:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/video/#!/news/local/Suspicion-Surrounds-Food-Stamp-Use/140439093

(Note: I originally had the video imbeded, but that stopped working. Click on the link and it’s there … I hope.)

Feb. 29, 2012

Tonight — Feb. 24 — at 11 pm California time I’ll be on NBC News in San Diego, Channel 7. Their great new anchor, Christine Haas, interview me about food stamp abuse by Californians.

But if you don’t live in America’s Finest City, you need not worry. Christine is going to send me a link to the video and I’ll put it up on CalWatchDog.com as soon as it’s ready.

Feb. 24, 2012

By DAVE ROBERTS

“I’ve never forgotten Jack Kemp saying the way we define compassion is not by adding up how many people receive government benefits, but rather tallying the numbers of those who no longer need them. The Democrat Party is not interested in that definition of compassion. The Democrat Party wants more and more people dependent.”

— Rush Limbaugh

Despite a $14 trillion national debt that is increasing by $1.4 trillion annually, California Democrats are seeking to get more state residents sucking on the federal teat — even if it will result in additional fraud.

Currently,  3.2 million Californians receive food stamps under the state’s CalFresh program, totaling 8.7 percent of state residents. There has been significant growth in the number of food stamp recipients — 21 percent more since 2009 and 62 percent more since 2006. Yet California remains significantly below the national average of 14.3 percent. To get up to speed, the state would need to sign up more than 2 million more residents — a 64 percent increase.

Assembly Democrats have sponsored several bills to help do that by:

* Allowing convicted drug criminals who have done their time to receive food stamps (AB 828).

* Making it easier for those no longer eligible for welfare (known as CalWORKs) to reapply for food stamps (AB 808).

* Making it easier for families with children receiving free school lunches to apply for food stamps (AB 402).

* Implementing a pilot program to get Social Security recipients to sign up for food stamps (AB 69).

* Eliminating fingerprinting of food stamp applicants, changing the quarterly reporting by applicants to semi-annual reporting and reducing energy bills for those receiving food stamps (AB 6).

The bills’ sponsors and supporters pointed out at the April 5 Assembly Human Services Committee hearing that because food stamps are a federal program, increasing their use would not add to California’s budget deficit. They also argued that every dollar spent on food leads to a nearly $2 boost in the state economy. The restaurant and grocer associations and Farm Bureau were among the bills’ supporters, along with a plethora of social service advocacy groups.

Most of the bills met with opposition by the two Republicans on the committee, but they were regularly outvoted 4-2 by the Democrats.

Fraud OK

AB 6 generated the most controversy due to its likelihood of leading to more fraud — a possibility that the bill’s sponsor, Felipe Fuentes, D-Sylmar, and the committee Democrats were willing to accept.

Fuentes said that California is 49th in the nation in the percentage of food stamp recipients and that only two other states require fingerprinting and photographing of applicants.

“California, the state that feeds this nation and much of the world, and we can’t even feed our own,” said Fuentes. “We are in the depths of a painful recession. Children are hungry. We have no general fund (money) to invest, but we must do something. The least we can do is remove the barriers that we have placed in front of these families. Our bottom line is that this bill will put food in empty stomachs. It feeds children.”

Cory Salzillo, director of legislation for the California District Attorneys Association, opposed the bill, pointing out that eliminating fingerprinting and requiring only semi-annual rather than quarterly reports from applicants would increase the likelihood of fraud.

The two Republicans on the committee, Shannon Grove of Bakersfield and Brian Jones of Santee, didn’t have a problem with semi-annual reporting but did want to retain the fingerprinting requirement. Grove said that fingerprinting has been estimated to save the state $68 million annually in fraud costs — $2 million of that in Fuentes’ Los Angeles County alone.

“I think there’s an incalculable advantage to having that there,” said Jones of the fingerprinting requirement. “We don’t know how much abuse we are preventing through that process. I think it just discourages folks from giving it a try if you know you’re going to be photographed and fingerprinted.”

Jones asked Fuentes whether he would be willing to delete that part of his bill. But Fuentes responded that fraud is minimal — a state audit found only 845 cases of fraud in eight years. And he argued that the risk of increased fraud would be more than offset by the economic gains from providing more food stamps.

“I think you have to take into real consideration that you’ve got restaurants and the Farm Bureau and other folks who I think recognize the economic activity that would be gained by getting those tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars of additional activity into the state with federal money,” said Fuentes. “And understanding that California generally gets short shrift with federal dollars and knowing that we could remove barriers that, albeit could cause additional concern of deterrence for folks who want to perpetrate fraud, I think the numbers sort of weigh out here that I would rather risk getting additional dollars, additional economic activity for California than pull that part out of the bill.”

The committee Democrats showed a similar lack of concern about fraud when they voted down AB949. Sponsored by Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, the bill would have doubled the fine for those convicted of welfare fraud, with half of the extra revenue paying for additional fraud investigators.

Don Wagner, R-Irvine, speaking for Gorell, who is currently serving in the Navy deployed to Afghanistan, pointed out that there is supposed be at least one investigator for every 1,000 welfare cases. But in 2009 half of the counties in the state did not meet that ratio. “The result is fraud goes undetected and deserving CalWORKs recipients go unserved,” said Wagner.

Arguing against the bill was Mike Herald, legislative advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. He said that California spends more money on fraud prevention than any other state and that multiple systems are already in place to deter fraud.

“Less than 2.4 percent of all cases ever get referred for fraud and just 1 percent of those referred for fraud ever ends up in a fraud conviction,” Herald said. “To us that’s not an example of a system that needs further funding and further staffing. That’s a sign of a system that’s already working quite effectively and really we should leave it alone.”

Also opposed was Kevin Aslanian, executive director of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, who said, “These days in California a lot of people are doing jail time because they can’t pay the fine. This is just going to increase the jail time that people will be doing because they can’t pay the fine. That affects the family. And it’s also a job killer.”

Case Backlog

Wagner responded, “If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. We are talking about crimes that defraud the state of California and take money out of the pockets of the least among us, the poorest among us. The prosecution numbers that you heard are quite a bit skewed. Prosecution is only for cases resulting in above $10,000 in fraud. There are a lot of fraud cases that come below that line.

“The state auditor said that as of 2008 there was a backlog of 6,381 referrals and 6,858 new referrals, resulting in a total caseload of 13,239 referred cases for prosecution. The counties were only able to act on 5,074 of those cases — well below half of them — because of a lack of resources.

“We are not asking for resources out of the general fund to handle those cases. We are asking for resources out of those who are defrauding the system to increase the number of cases that can be handled. With respect to the question of convictions, the percentage resulting in convictions in San Diego County was 96 percent, Sacramento County — 93 percent, LA county — 88 percent. Statewide the rate is 83 percent. We’re not talking about an epidemic of cases that are found to be not meritorious. Where there are referred cases, they are typically found to be meritorious. And what this bill will do is provide the resources necessary to continue to ferret out the fraud.

“Only substantial cases of welfare fraud are referred for prosecution. Not someone who fudged their income information, for example, on a welfare application. The welfare departments in each county have discretion on whether they want to take administrative action or refer the cases for prosecution. Administrative action simply results in a reduction or discontinuance of aid, not someone going to jail. If we have reason to believe that substantial fraud is involved, such as organized crime, counties can refer the case to an investigator for potential prosecution.

“Some organized crime groups are actively extorting thousands of dollars from taxpayers. A 2007 L.A. Daily News article reported that welfare investigation authorities and social service officials expressed a significant problem that organized crime groups inflict upon welfare programs. And that has increased significantly over the last decade. We shouldn’t tolerate this as a legislature. And it is the responsibility of our legislature to ensure that tax dollars are only used for those who truly deserve the help.”

The committee Democrats — Jim Beall of San Jose, Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, Betsy Butler of Marina del Rey and Sandré Swanson of Oakland — were not persuaded, killing the bill by voting against it 4-2.