Link Card Debacle

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/photo-ids-on-link-cards-f_n_848748.html?ref=fb&src=sp

So politicians in Illinois (read Republicans) are concerned about people misusing the Link Card system. They are concerned that people are trading their food card usage for money that they will, in turn, use for drugs. I believe this is a real issue but I do not think an photo will help.

A quote from HuffPost:

Aside from skepticism about the reasons behind the bill, the very notion of photo IDs on LINK cards is complicated. Food stamps are assigned to families, not individuals, and a photo ID would inhibit the ability of children or spouses to do the grocery shopping for the household. Plus, food stamps are a federal program, so the US Department of Agriculture would need to create a special exemption for Illinois to allow the state to make such a mandate, DHS spokeswoman Marielle Sainvilus explained to Illinois Statehouse News.

So I'm wondering...Since these cards are assigned to families. How many photos on the card?! Huh? Can we pick the photos? Can we put the baby on it too? How often can we change the picture? Kids grow up, ya know.

Another quote:

Representative Chapin Rose, a Republican from the suburbs of downstate Champaign, was the sponsor of the bill, HB 161. The legislation was originally a mandate that all LINK cards, the state-issued debit cards on which food stamp benefits are disbursed, have a photo ID of their owner.

After much amendment, it is now simply a measure requiring the Department of Human Services to consider the cost of such a mandate. But it still encountered uproar from Democratic legislators.

So are we are going to spend money on a cost analysis that could be done in two phone calls. I know the answer. The bulk production of cards is cheaper than individually personalized cards so we are looking at multiplying the cost 3 to 5 times what it normally is. Why do I know this? I asked my husband who worked in card production two years ago.

Another quote from HuffPost:

For his part, Rose claimed that the bill would save the state $750 million in fraudulent use of food stamp funds, though he provided few facts to back that claim. And he cited oft-quoted arguments about abuse of food stamps: “I don’t see what the efficacy is in handing someone the ability on a weekly basis to trade a card easily for drugs, for cash to buy drugs,” he said on the floor.

The persons sponsoring this bill obviously have no grasp on how this is actually done. Do we really think the images of a family of 4 are going to stop a "hype" (see www.urbandictionary.com , definition #5) from trading Link for cash? The answer is no. Which then causes me to wonder.. Is the strategy to spend the baby's food money on a cost analysis instead?

There is another option, spend the money for this discussion and analysis on education for children and parents, drug rehab for those who need it, more teachers, healthier school lunches, after school programs and decent grocery stores in food deserts. Heck, life skills training for parents and kids. We could do some much more and so much better than we are doing now and it wouldn't look like anyone was picking on poor people.