‘Free-for-all’ arises in Walmart after network problems
A “free-for-all” is usually a disorderly fight, or argument, in a crowd, where everyone present participates. But at the Walmart stores in Springhill and Mansfield this month, a different “free-for-all” broke out. And even though police were called to assist, there wasn’t a single punch thrown.
You see, this time, the “freefor-all” were the shoppers who, on that quiet Saturday night, had emptied the store shelves as quickly as possible into shopping cart after shopping cart, after learning that the balance remaining on their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards could not be easily verified by the store, because the network was temporarily unavailable.
As Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd described the shopping frenzy, “It was worse than any black Friday” that he’s ever seen, as he watched some shoppers push eight to 10 grocery carts past the registers and into the parking lot, even though it was apparent that many shoppers had purchased far more than their available card balances. Walmart officials, however, had decided to let shoppers make the purchases using the EBT cards anyway.
It’s more than worth mentioning that there were many last month that did not abuse the system, who did not pile food into shopping cart after shopping cart. As one of the recipients said, “I am conscious of the fact that this isn’t my money.”
And as quietly as this “free-for-all” began, it ended. The network came back online, and an announcement was made over the loudspeaker. Shoppers then fled, leaving their carts, full of perishable food, in the aisles for store employees to clean-up behind them.
This all received lots of national media attention, of course, and justifiable outrage. Some said that it was simply a case of, “easy come, easy go.” Others called it, “theft.” Still others pointed to Washington’s failed economic policies, and the pervasive hopelessness of so many Americans today. In fact, since the Bush administration, the number of Americans receiving public assistance, in the form of food stamps, has almost doubled, and today stands at 47 million Americans (or nearly one sixth of the U.S. population).
And while these characterizations may all be true, the Saturday night “free-for-all” at those Walmart stores underscores the principle that no one spends someone else’s money as wisely as their own.
It’s this principle that has led many economists to propose providing cash benefits directly to low-income folks, and eliminating altogether the plethora of Great Society programs, such as food stamps, unemployment insurance, rent subsidies and other “in-kind” transfers.
The “Cracker-Jack” welfare-programs from 1964 still today incentivize lowincome folks to earn less, and save nothing. It is estimated that welfare recipients lose $0.50 or more of benefits for each additional dollar they earn. Housing vouchers are only available if you make sure that you earn less than 50 percent of the median income in your area. Want to get a raise at your place of employment? Plan on losing even more benefits, then.
These programs incentivize working less and promote mediocrity. They always have. There are actually more people in poverty now than in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society programs, thereby declaring his so-called war on poverty. In hindsight, it’s proven more political, than practical.
Providing cash benefits directly to low-income folks is not a new idea, and may not be any more costly than the present day bloated bureaucratic administration of welfare benefits. In fact, a recent Congressional Research Service memorandum revealed cash benefits would actually save taxpayers money. Here’s how:
The federal government spends approximately $750 billion a year on means-tested welfare programs. If the federal government would give this money directly to the 17 million households living below the poverty level, each one of these families could theoretically receive $44,000, which is nearly double the 2013 poverty rate for a family of four.
And when you count the $280 billion contribution from the states, there’s enough to send almost $60,000 to every U.S. household living below the poverty level, and this would be in addition to any Medicare and Social Security benefits a household is receiving. You can see that there could be significant savings to the taxpayers, using this approach. And it would offer incentives for recipients to work more, as well as save, and make that short journey to a new direction, from welfare to work, and without continuing government assistance.
The bottom line from this “freefor-all” is that people are the best stewards of their own money, and that government can never duplicate such stewardship for any of us, despite their best efforts, and regardless of ever increasing regulations and standards, on everything from housing to nutrition.
So, no, there was not any fighting during the “free-for-all” this month in Mansfield, or in Springhill, but it seems clear, though: it was our federal government who got the black-eye.
Louis R. Avallone is a Shreveport businessman and attorney. He is also a former aide to U.S. Representative Jim McCrery and editor of The Caddo Republican. His columns have appeared regularly in The Forum since 2007. Follow him on Facebook, on Twitter @louisravallone or by email at [email protected].
