Monday, May 19, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93XokN3DPtk

National
Food stamp recipients struggle through the month

Associated Press
Originally published 03:00 p.m., May 17, 2008
Updated 03:00 p.m., May 17, 2008



Danielle Brown stands outside a South Side market at midnight, braving the spring chill for her first chance to buy groceries since her food stamps ran out nearly two weeks ago.

For days, Brown has been turning cans of "whatever we got in the cabinet" into breakfast, lunch and dinner for her children, ages 1 and 3, who finished off the last of the milk and cereal long ago.

"Ain't got no food left, the kids are probably hungry," said Brown, a 23-year-old single mother who relies heavily on her $312 monthly allotment of food stamps a ration adjusted just once a year, in October.

This is what the skyrocketing cost of food looks like at street level: Poor people whose food stamps don't buy as much as they once did rushing into a store in the dead of night, filling shopping carts with cereal, eggs and milk so their kids can wake up on the first day of the month to a decent meal.

Here's what it looks like another way: The number of Americans relying on food stamps has climbed 6.1 percent in the past year, from 26.1 million in February 2007 to 27.7 million in February this year. Every state except for Arkansas and Colorado saw the food stamp rolls increase, led by Nevada and Florida both also hit hard by the housing crisis.

The sputtering economy, persistent unemployment and the mortgage crisis have all contributed to the increase. The U.S. Agriculture Department expects the overall number of participants to reach 28 million next year.

It all paints a picture that experts say is becoming more grim every month.

"People with incomes below the poverty threshold are in dire straits because not only are food prices increasing but the food stamps they are receiving have not increased," said Dr. John Cook, an associate professor at Boston University's medical school who has studied the food stamp program, particularly how it affects children.

On the South Side of Chicago, what it means is that people like Danielle Brown wait for the stroke of midnight, when one month gives way to another and brings a new allotment of food stamps.

Dennis Kladis began opening his family-owned One Stop Food & Liquors once a month at midnight nine months ago to give desperate families a chance to buy food as soon as possible.

"I'm telling you, by the end of the month they're just dying to get back to the first," said Kladis, who has watched other area stores follow his lead. "Obviously, they are struggling to get through the month."

For Lynda Wheeler, who receives $281 in food stamps each month, the rhythm of life has been one of shopping for food, running out of food and turning to churches, food pantries and friends for food. And all the while, she is doing things like cutting milk with water to make it last a bit longer.

"You get it on the first and it runs out by the 14th and 15th," said Wheeler, a single mom who brought her 14-year-old son and 2-year-old daughter shopping at midnight with the Link card, the Illinois version of food stamps.

The consumer price index for food rose 5 percent last year, the highest gain in nearly two decades. It is especially grim news for the poor.

Start with milk. Between March 2007 and this year, a gallon of milk jumped from just over $3 a gallon to nearly $3.80, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. During the same period, eggs climbed from about $1.60 a dozen to $2.20. Meanwhile, everything from white bread to chicken to tomatoes is more expensive than it was last year.

Just last summer, the maximum food stamp payment $542 a month for a family of four with a gross income of no more than $2,238 was enough to cover the USDA's "thrifty food plan," a bare-bones diet that meets minimal nutritional needs. Studies show that allotment now falls about $25 short, Cook said.

Because food stamp allotments are adjusted every fall based on the federal food inflation rate, recipients are months away from getting any relief. But even when that relief comes, advocates say, it won't come close to keeping pace with rising costs.

Meanwhile, demand is growing. The number of U.S. food stamp participants grew by 482,000 between October and February; in the same time period a year earlier, the figure dropped by 135,000.

And just getting to the store is a lot more expensive. Since October, the cost of gas has shot up nationally from $2.70 a gallon to $3.62, according to the Lundberg Survey, a petroleum market research firm. With 31 cents of that jump in the last month alone, Lundberg says there is a good chance the price will top $4 a gallon by the end of the summer.

That means the poor are spending money on gas that they might otherwise have used for food sometimes striking deals with people who have cars to buy them food using the only currency they have.

"Even if they don't have a car, they are using food stamps just to get a ride to the store," said Dan Block, a Chicago State University geography professor who has studied grocery store shopping in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods.

High gas prices were the reason 58-year-old Floyd Ogalvie made the 15-minute trip for the midnight opening this month in his electric wheelchair.

"My old lady, she drives, but she didn't want to drive to save gas," he said.

For starters, gas prices are not part of the equation. USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel did say that the agency is trying to help and noted recipes for inexpensive meals are posted on the agency Web site.

But she said there is only much food stamp programs can or were meant to do.

"Food stamps were designed to be a supplement to the food budget, (they) were never intended to be the entire budget," she said.

If the USDA pulls $1.7 billion from a contingency fund of $6 billion this year to support the food stamp program, as it expects to do, that would be the largest withdrawal since $2 billion was pulled out after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The program saw a surge in demand that year as well, with the number of recipients climbing to 27.9 million in October and 29.8 million in November.

On Thursday, the Senate passed a five-year, $300 billion farm bill that includes $200 billion for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. Daniel said it was too early to say how the at will affect benefits to food stamp recipients and she knew of no provision in the bill to make the annual adjustment before the fall.

In the meantime, there are signs that the same people shopping at midnight on the first of the month may be getting hungrier sooner.

Maura Daly of America's Second Harvest, a national network of food banks, said food banks are seeing a 20 percent increase in the number of people turning to them for help. Much of that increase, she said, comes at month's end.

Diane Doherty, executive director of the Illinois Hunger Coalition, said she's seeing people more frantic for food than ever.

"The level of desperation is just frightening," she said. "People are calling, saying they have no idea what they are going to do."

But even as demand is rising, many food panties nationwide have been forced to cut back on the amount of food given to individual families because higher fuel costs and commodity prices have sliced into private donations to the pantries, Daly and others say.

What that means is the hungry are casting an ever wider net for food, showing up at pantry after pantry.

"We're seeing people come to us from further and further outside our geographical boundaries, (from) as far away as Indiana and southern Wisconsin," said Greg Nergaard, coordinator at Lakeview Pantry on Chicago's North Side. "What they say is they didn't know where else to go."

For now, many of the needy, including many in Kladis' store pushing carts laden with soda pop, bags of cookies and chips much of it cheaper than healthier food are doing what they can to stretch their shrinking buying power.

"The bottom line is, a mother trying to feed her kids is not really picky about what she puts in their bellies," said Dan Gibbons, executive director of the Chicago Anti-Hunger Federation. "She just wants them full."

On the Net:

USDA: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns

Advocacy groups: http://www.secondharvest.org, http://www.ilhunger.org and http://www.antihunger.org

A history of food stamps in the United States

1939-1943: People buy orange stamps equal to their normal food expenses; for every dollar of orange stamps purchased, they receive an extra 50 cents in blue stamps to purchase surplus food.

1961: President John F. Kennedy signs his first executive order to expand food distribution and announces on Feb. 2 that food stamp pilot programs will be initiated.

1964: The programs expanded from eight areas to 43, with 380,000 people in 22 states participating. President Lyndon Johnson requests that Congress pass legislation making the Food Stamp Program permanent and signs into law the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

1965-1971: The number of people receiving food stamps climbs past 561,000 in 1965, then beyond 1 million in 1966, 3 million in 1969 and 10 million in 1971.

1974: The Food Stamp Program begins operation nationwide July 1.

1988: Development of electronic benefit delivery systems begins, leading to issuance of plastic cards instead of paper food stamps.

2008: The total cost of the program exceeds $33 billion, up from from $2.8 billion three decades ago, and 27.7 million people participate as of February.

Source: United States Department of Agriculture.

You must follow these rules in order to post comments:

* 1. Keep it clean.Comments that are obscene, vulgar, lewd or sexually-oriented will get the ax. Creative spelling of such terms also will be banned.
* 2. Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
* 3. Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything.
* 4. Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
* 6. Keep it local. Do not post direct links to sites outside of Caller.com.
* 7. Police yourselves. Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
* 8. Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
* 9. Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
* 10. Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
* 11.Help us get it right. If you find a factual error or misspelling, email newmedia@caller.com or metrodesk@caller.com, or call 886-3697.

(52) User Comments:
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 254809 on May 17, 2008 at 3:18 p.m.

The sputtering economy???
In April Only, Americans spent 1.23 BILLION on gaming systems....up 47% from last year....(look this up on foxnews.com)......and in the first weekend, Iron Man made $100 MILLION PLUS!!!! And today, I could not find a parking spot at my local mall(I live outside of CC)....sputtering economy....please...

Persistent unemployment ???
Unemployment is actually down at this time....

The mortgage crisis???
Those ARM Mortgages are only 3% of ALL mortgages in the US...

Give me a break......people just need to get off their lazy butts and get a job....quit having kids that THEY CAN NOT afford....stop buying $100 shoes and $300 purses....I can go on and on...

PS. Ms. Brown said "Ain't got no food left, the kids are probably hungry,".....you should of said, "I have no food left...." .....please learn to speak correctly, then maybe you can will be able to get a decent job....
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 348998 on May 17, 2008 at 3:33 p.m.

In Corpus she would have just sold her food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar to buy booze and drugs. It happens everyday!

P.S. Don't complain about something you are getting for free.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237092 on May 17, 2008 at 3:40 p.m.

in response to 254809

AMEN! I like what the article said about food stamps being designed to supplement the food bill not cover the entire thing.

These people, especially the young ones and those who are not physically disabled, should be ashamed of themselves. Grocery carts full of soda pop and chips?!?! What happened to kool-aid?? What about top roman noodles???

Quit having kids you can't afford and work and get a part time job if you need to.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 454522 on May 17, 2008 at 4:40 p.m.

You all need to think about it. One day it could be you on food stamps. We should not make fun of people on food stamps, we all are going in that direction. The food stamp program is a wonderful program. I am a single mom on looking in to food stamps, are you going to make fun of me ?
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 248355 on May 17, 2008 at 4:51 p.m.

in response to 254809

"PS. Ms. Brown said 'Ain't got no food left, the kids are probably hungry,'.....you should of said, 'I have no food left....' .....please learn to speak correctly, then maybe >you can will be able< to get a decent job...."

Perhaps, you might heed your own advice and learn how to write correctly. Just a suggestion.

-dave
a.k.a. the grammar police
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 234453 on May 17, 2008 at 4:51 p.m.

in response to 454522

I personally do not make fun of those who truly need temporary assistance. What I do make fun of, turn my nose up at, etc., are: those who sell their Lone Star cards for 50 cents on the dollar for drug money; those who abuse the system by continuing to have children they cannot afford to feed and take care of; and the sterotype we have all seen that buys food with the Lone Star Card and then loads it into a late model Lincoln or Cadillac.

If a person uses food stamps as a step up out of poverty or a bad situation - more power to them, but those families who spend a lifetime in the system and spread the "why work" mentality to the next generation - yes I have a serious problem with that.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 710826 on May 17, 2008 at 5:24 p.m.

in response to 454522

You are right, absolutely right.

There is a lot to the saying "there but for the grace of God, go I".

There are some things that you can do in the interim to help. You mention being a single mom, are your child or children receiving proper child support, there are laws that can and will help with this?

Please do look into the many organizations in Corpus Christi that can lend a helping hand and I repeat, helping hand, not a handout that will make you feel as if you are losing your self respect and have to be concerned with " I am a single mom on looking in to food stamps, are you going to make fun of me ?"

God help and God bless.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 254809 on May 17, 2008 at 5:28 p.m.

in response to 248355

thanks for the correction.....
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 348998 on May 17, 2008 at 5:34 p.m.

in response to 454522

I will make fun of you.

I grew up with two other siblings and a single mom she worked liked crazy, we wore cheap clothes and did not own a television. She tought me that although it easy if you work hard you can make it your own.

Get a second a job and teach your kids some character.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 425944 on May 17, 2008 at 5:36 p.m.

I know a fellow that said he was going to buy T-bone steaks with the last of his food stamps. Now he's a nice enough guy, but he was going to buy steaks for him and his friends.

I just shook my head in dismay.

My family makes pretty good money, but we only buy T-bone steaks when there is a special occasion. At 7 dollars a steak for 4 people and the high price of propane or charcoal brickets to cook them, well, people who are on the welfare program should be spending their government handout more wisely.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 711310 on May 17, 2008 at 5:40 p.m.

Before she decided to have those children, it would have been nice if she had asked me if I minded supporting them for her.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 241057 on May 17, 2008 at 5:44 p.m.

There are places to go get food for free. Nobody has to starve to death. Check out community kitchens.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 463408 on May 17, 2008 at 5:59 p.m.

Kudos to the USDA spokesperson -- she wz quoted as saying the Food Stamp program was meant to supplement NOT BE THE ENTIRE FUNDING FOR FOOD.

The government is an enabler. More and more people think the government/state is obligated to help. I can understand if a TAXPAYER falls on bad times, for ex: get sick, get laid off on so on. But to have 4 kids by 3 daddies and/or live with your baby daddy or worse their grandma WTF?

I think if you get funding and are a single parent, #1 you need to practice birth control, and if you can't get sterilized, because I have only 2 children because guess what??? it is expensive--- so if i can practice birth control federal receipents should be mandated too.

Also federal receipients should be able to get their funding after they prove they have a full time job and/or school 12hrs mininum. My mother worked and went to school at night and we did not have federal asistance. We learned not to ask for anything, we knew food and bills came 1st. Once we turned 16 we got a job and helped out like real families should.

so saying you are single parent is a cop out....not a good excuse.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 447776 on May 17, 2008 at 6:17 p.m.

Gee, I have to pinch pennies when I go to the grocery store too. Oh yeah, I also have to go to work every day too. Sorry, not feeling sorry for the stampheads. All you single moms out there made the concious decision to sleep with the "fathers" of your kids. I had nothing to do with it so why should I have to pay for your mistake. When I make a mistake I have to pay for it myself. Go get a second job and take care of your kids. Call me cold and heartless but I've seen too many people buying crablegs and steaks with lone star cards. Screw that.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 704275 on May 17, 2008 at 7:59 p.m.

When my husband turned into a drug addict, I had no choice but to leave, go on food stamps and go back to college. After college, I got a good job and got off food stamps.....Temporary and supplemental are the key words. Most women who receive food stamps are also eligible for WIC....WIC controls exactly what you can buy with their vouchers. You get milk, cheese, juice, eggs, and cereal on WIC. In addition, they give you baby formula and baby food.
I do agree that the deadbeats need to get a job!
As far as child support, it can be drawn up....enforcement is a different matter. I am currently owed $15,000 for one child. The Attorney General can't do much because my ex moved out of state. When they locat him at a job to garnish, he quits. He hasn't filed taxes in several years because they garnish his tax returns for his child. If they can't be served, then the AG can't take them to court. The AG is lame!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 711040 on May 17, 2008 at 8:11 p.m.

I'm surprised. There seems to be a lot of intelligent people commenting on this article. I figured that there would be a bunch of liberal cry babies blaming Bush and everyone else for the higher price of food.and the condition that the stamp holders find themselves in. I retired after taking care to save a few dollars and plan how I would live on my fixed income. The higher prices for food is a problem, but I know I will find ways to deal with it without crying to a liberal government for help.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 230619 on May 17, 2008 at 8:11 p.m.

Post 454522- If you are looking at getting food stamps, why is your lazy butt using a computer to blog when you should be looking for a second or third job. If you need more than three jobs to support yourself, you either eat too much or you shouldn't have had that many kids.

Why hasn't anyone blamed Bush yet?

Vote Democrat: It's easier than working!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 253187 on May 17, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.

The problem with buying junk food because it is cheaper...is that it doesn't satisfy hunger or nutrition. I can eat a whole bag of Oreos and not feel full! In the article, it mentioned that she has a cart full of junk. In the long run, this doesn't pay off because the family eats junk quick and goes looking for more.

Maybe, some education before giving the food stamps. A film, class, etc.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 463342 on May 17, 2008 at 9:17 p.m.

I dont feel sorry for "poor" people. There are no poor people here. Just irresponsible, or lazy people here. The people who claim to be poor are rich compared to people who are really starving around the world.

I was "poor" once. I was being irresponsible and had no job, no money, no food, no car. But because I was white, and a male, they denied me any sort of food stamps, or help of any kind. What does that tell you about the people complaining that the welfare that they get is not enough.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 454522 on May 17, 2008 at 10:33 p.m.

post 253187- For your information I do work 3 jobs. I work full time, clean a church and clean people's house's. how do you like that. i also desire so time with my 9 month old. so you get a life. it's none of your business how many children i have. you must not have any thing to do. so their back off single mother's.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 711762 on May 17, 2008 at 11:01 p.m.

It makes me sick! Most of the people you see using food stamps then pull out a wad of money to pay for other stuff it does not cover. Then out in the parking lot they get in a 08 lincoln or some other high end vehicle. Its just like anything else, if you know someone who works at these agencies you can get all the free money us hard working taxpayers have to pay. They should cancel welfare and food stamps and then maybe these lazy bums would have to get a job.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 448291 on May 17, 2008 at 11:36 p.m.

There are one out of ten people working that get food stamps. I work two jobs and make $35,000 and I'm having a hard time making ends met. SO, for you cry baby's food stamp people. You need to stop bit----- and stop having kids so you can get more $$$$$$$$ on your food stamp card and go get a JOB. "O" buy the way- I would not even think of getting food stamps. I'm not a low life, like the nine non-working low life bit----- cry baby's. and driving a $40,000 plus car or truck with FIVE very very FAT overweight plus crying kids getting in eating candy. There is a job out there for you. All you have to do is get you overweight butt out there and find it.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 252944 on May 17, 2008 at 11:43 p.m.

People make a carreer of the food stamp programs. I think they should only allow them help for 6 months. My husband and I spend 200 a wk buying groceries. It upsets me when people stare at my cart as if I was paying with Lone Star. Fortunately we both work and are able to provide for our kids. Some of these loosers have boyfriends going grocery shopping with them and buy the most expensive meats when we have to settle for chicken and ground beef at times. The government needs to put a stop to this. I feel for the children, but not for the lazy mothers and fathers who depend on the system!!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 295476 on May 18, 2008 at 12:28 a.m.

Think Money Buys Happiness?

Now, We Meet The Real Losers.

Quit whining and do something about it

and while yall are talking bout welfare why not address the corporate welfare, the fraud and the corruption transacting as we speak right here in South Texas. Go after someone who legally robs the Taxpayers exponentially compared to allof the FS clients combined.

You guys sound like a bunch of hypocrites

Are You Haters Having Fun Yet?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

LOL ;)
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 248355 on May 18, 2008 at 3:22 a.m.

in response to 254809

You are very quite welcome.

Two of my stupid pet peeves are misspellings and grammatical errors.

-dave
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 245502 on May 18, 2008 at 3:47 a.m.

I would think you'd be more interested in the content of the post as opposed to checking for grammatical and spelling errors.

Oh..and btw.."very quite" welcome?
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 711521 on May 18, 2008 at 4:58 a.m.

Get over the critical pet peeves. Not all readers have the background you do Dave. You endup being very haughty and demeaning to those just attempting to simply express themselves.

I agree about people abusing the food stamp system. These people can eat steak all month long. I don't use food stamps and generally eat only one meal per day. I budget what I eat and purchase cheaper items frequently. Prices are rising and the easy street is running out. Get a job and take birth control! or better yet get neutered.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 233751 on May 18, 2008 at 7:10 a.m.

The Lone Star card should have limitations on what it can purchase just like the WIC program. Staples like bread, milk, pasta, beans, veggies, certain cheeses and meats would be allowed. No cookies, sodas, chips, high end meats and cheeses. This would stop much of the abuse. Our system has the technology to do this now and no one is complaining about the WIC system, it works!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 276111 on May 18, 2008 at 8:14 a.m.

I saw a couple buy groceries with a lone star card then loaded it up on a full dress Harley which cost at least $22,000 and was a newer model. Geez!!!! Shared prosperity at its finest. Darn democrats!!!!!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 245313 on May 18, 2008 at 8:26 a.m.

I am so disheartened to read the comments posted here. So quick to judge, so quick to condemn, so quick to know it all. Must feel very proud of yourselves because everything YOU do is right....just because YOU do it means everyone else can or should. Get a grip people! I have some advice for you....if it upsets you to see the person in front of you in the grocery line using a Lone Star card, look the other way! Not all "poor" people are lazy, welfare cheating, abusers of the system....many have happened along something called LIFE! Instead of being so quick to condemn, try reaching out a helping hand. Truly, if this is how some of you really think, I pity the day for you that Jesus Christ comes back to this earth!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 246009 on May 18, 2008 at 8:53 a.m.

The need to get J-O-B and stop making a way of life of all the freebies the government offers. There are plenty of jobs out there, it may not be "exactly" what you want to do but it's a job. You choose the path you want to go. Everyone has the same opportunity to succeed in life, IF they choose. Along with all the freebies are grants for a better education. Do something about it.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 408032 on May 18, 2008 at 10:33 a.m.

There is nothing wrong with the food stamp program. To me that is just free money. The goverment takes my money in taxes and I just get it back in a lonestar card. My family has survived many decades on food stamps and will continue to survive for more years to come.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 260556 on May 18, 2008 at 11:05 a.m.

I'm not about to bash all those food stamp recipients out there, BUT I am about to bash the ones who are receiving them by deceiving the system. I'm all for some people getting them when they are in need. (It doesn't matter how many kids or if you're a single parent ) BUt I've seen so many young ( late teens to early 40s) just so happy to be on the system. They are content for all the freebies they get. I know someone who receives about 300 a month (for one 2 yr old) PLus her 2 bdrm apt is only $50 a month. Not to mention a decreased rate for her electricity. This person is only 21yrs old. C'mon, at that age you're old enough to get a job and make a better life for yourself. (Did I mention since she's not married, she conveniently has her "working" boyfriend live with her and they have all of his income to spend on anything. This is the type of stuff that is WRONG!!! If the government increases the amount of food stamps, then they need to increase the minimum wage rate for ALL hard working individuals!!! What do ya'll think?
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 244675 on May 18, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.

This is a classic vicious circle. The more people on welfare programs, the more difficult it is to introduce any sort of welfare reform. Most of these folks would probably never bother to vote unless it's against a candidate proposing government assistance limitations. I'm all for helping people get out of a tough situation; I was in a bad way after my now ex-wife racked up 10K in credit card debt behind my back then took off with no intention of paying any of it. It was a struggle, but I sacrificed and got through it without gov't assistance or destroying my credit, now I'm doing fine. Career welfare is inexcusable and those who practice it should be ashamed. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, not the endless free lunch.
Oh, and the previous poster who said it was none of our business how many kids she/he has, business is defined as the transfer of funds for goods or services. If my funds (taxes) are used to help support children you can't afford, that makes it my business to a degree. If you don't rely on the gov't then have all the kids you want. Otherwise deal with the consequences on your own, especially the folks who continue to have more children while already on the dole.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 234453 on May 18, 2008 at 12:04 p.m.

in response to 408032

And just how much have you paid in taxes as opposed to how much you scammed the government out of during those decades you are so proud of? You are a classic example of what is WRONG with the system!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 463408 on May 18, 2008 at 1:49 p.m.

in response to 454522

If you are receiving federal assistance - Medicaid to deliver the baby and get prenatal care, WIC, Lone Star Card then I hate to burst your bubble it is MY business, no let me correct myself it is EVERYONE's business how many children you have.

If you receive no assistance, be my guest and pop those puppies out. Otherwise get your tubes tied, get some job training and get a job so you and others like you can be SELF-SUFFICIENT and hopefully stop the "cycle" of poverty your children will be repeating.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 463408 on May 18, 2008 at 2:05 p.m.

in response to 408032

Food stamp program is NOT free, you are abusing taxpayer dollars... and I doubt you contributed into the "system" more than you are taking out.

Lone Star is supposed to be TEMPORARY-- not a way of life. If you were surviving, you would not need the Lone Star card, you would be "surviving" on your own.. but losers like you will continue to drain the "system" and people that really need it get the bad rap.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 233913 on May 18, 2008 at 2:19 p.m.

We could hire a bunch of retiree's to work part time for the government to supplement their social security ... and there only job would be to do investigative work on every food stamp and welfare recipient to see, what kind of car do they own, what have they purchased over the time period that they have been on welfare and handouts, who are they really living with - is there an income earner living in their home.... did they use the food stamps or sell them for cash to that Harley person.. so they could buy cigarettes and beer?... and if the answer is that they are an abusive, bottom feeder... living off our tax dollars while making no effort to be responsible for themselves... then cut them off. It would be money well spent.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 699932 on May 18, 2008 at 3:54 p.m.

My income is close to 45K yearly- My daughter and I eat Banquete meals and Ramen Soup and we use tuna quite frequently. My daughter and I eat out either Friday or Saturday to rest from homecooked meals. Sunday we start all over again with simple foods and we eat out of napkins most times. My water bill doesnt shock me anymore. I like expensive clothing and expensive shoes and jewelry and I have a love for my expensive vehicle(paid in full). My daughter makes excellent grades all year so with her allowance she saves it for whatever she desires, which is Rock N Roll band t-shirts.

We have never ever asked for any governent handouts whatsoever and quite frankly- most of these people who are receiving food stamp vouchers I would like to think the great majority do temporary.For those who use the system and live off the government are those who are apparently lazy and have never been caught. The last time I ate steak was about three weeks ago! Lobster- whats that? My daughter and I survive just fine without expensive meals.My grocery bill makes me smile! Anyone need lessons on how to stretch a buck? Let me know, I have tons of reciepes ( providing you like tuna that is) lol
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 295476 on May 18, 2008 at 6:19 p.m.

Yeah right you got the idea,

"We could hire a bunch of retiree's to work part time for the government to supplement their social security ... and their only job would be to do investigative work on every Corporate Executive and Corporate Welfare recipient to see what kind of Boards they sit on, what kind of Property they own, what kind of Property their family owns and when and where in the hell did they get that crystal ball from? How many grants and non competing contracts have they received and the commonality amongst them all. Lets not forget the business expenses and the petty cash. What have they purchased over the time period that they have been on Corporate Welfare and / or receiving Government Contracts, Non competing "Business" handouts, What is the actual value of their home (not the appraised one), is their property tax appropriate for the actual value of their home, who are they really sleeping with - .... did they abuse or peddle their influence or for undisclosed amounts of cash under the table? How many times government grants included or paid for whiskey and women? And if the answer is that they are an abusive, bottom feeder... living off our tax dollars while making no effort to be responsible for themselves... then fine the heck out of them. It would be money well spent."
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 711504 on May 18, 2008 at 7:06 p.m.

I wish that I had $312 a month of FREE food for my family!

I struggle to pay my taxes, earn a living and get by on about $175 a month of food for a family of four. Thank God for Angel Food!

I really have NO SYMPATHY for those welfare addicts who milk the government for as many handouts as Barack Hussein Obama and his wicked racist minions will give in exchange for votes!

If you want to eat more -- GET A JOB!!!!
Oh wait...welfare recipients eat better than most teachers!!!!
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 295476 on May 18, 2008 at 7:31 p.m.

Go wait in the lines, go through the application specificities, allow yourself to be jerked around by the program administration and then comeback and tell us how lucrative & "free" the Welfare Program is.
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 295476 on May 18, 2008 at 10:40 p.m.

Why be a teacher if you have this bias against people who are "welfare" addicts as you claim?

It is teachers like you who have no intention of allowing a "welfare" student to succeed.

What kind of teacher are you?
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 237092 on May 18, 2008 at 11:52 p.m.

I wondered how many participants in the Buc parade this year use the Lone Star card. Especially the low rider cars with the girls up front and the kid(s) on their lap. I couldn't help but shake my head in disgust. Your tax dollars that provide free grocery money in the form of Lone Star cards, medical and dental insurance (Medi-caid) and WIC also probably helped provide those daddies all the cash they needed to pimp their rides.....
Reply to this Post | Suggest removal
related links Posted by 295476 on May 19, 2008 at 12:46 a.m.

All you fretting about what others got, know that the insurance company that charges you for health insurance is subsidized by the poor people.

Look it up.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Citations in draft or construction of an opinion is that considered "plagerism"? OR "selective syntax"?

Construction, reproduction, or citations of another's opinion used to formulate an opinion of a collage of many others different opinions written in a context that is irrelevant to the current opine if not for the "literally" wording to justify the wording when their "house keeping" issues are

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Expressive language is intended the prosecution of which "would have a chilling effect upon our system of jurisprudence."...Public or Private?

Send this document to a colleague Close This Window
















IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS


NO. PD-0351-05

THE STATE OF TEXAS


v.


JAMES VASILAS, Appellee


ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

COLLIN COUNTY

Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court.

O P I N I O N

We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to decide whether a petition for expunction qualifies as a "governmental record" under section 37.01 of the Texas Penal Code. One definition of a governmental record is "anything belonging to, received by, or kept by government for information, including a court record." Tex. Penal Code Ann. º 37.01(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). The definition of a court record is "a decree, judgment, order, subpoena, warrant, minutes, or other document issued by a court." Tex. Penal Code Ann. º 37.01(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). We will resolve whether pleadings filed with but not issued by a court fall within the definition of a governmental record pursuant to º 37.01(2)(A).

Facts

Appellee, James Vasilas, is an attorney whose client was charged with the state jail felony of delivery of marijuana. Appellee's client was convicted of the lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana. Thereafter, Appellee signed and filed a petition of expunction of the records relating to his client's arrest on the delivery charge. The State then charged Appellee in a four-count indictment of tampering with a governmental record pursuant to Tex. Penal Code º 37.10, alleging that he made three false entries in the petition for expunction. Appellee filed a nonsuit of the expunction lawsuit.

Subsequently, Appellee filed a motion to quash the indictment on two grounds. First, he asserted that º 37.10 of the Texas Penal Code and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 (1) were in pari materia, with Rule 13 controlling over º 37.10. Second, he claimed that pleadings in civil suits were not governmental records under the definition of º 37.01(2)(A). After hearing oral argument, the trial court granted the motion to quash without filing findings of fact or conclusions of law. The State timely filed its notice of appeal.

Because the State did not appeal the trial court's granting of the motion to quash the first three counts of the indictment, the sole issue before the court of appeals was whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to quash Count IV, which alleged that Appellee did "with intent to defraud and harm another, namely, the State of Texas, make, present, and use a governmental record, to wit: a Petition for Expunction of Records, with knowledge of its falsity." (2) The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that "the petition for expunction filed by appellee was not a governmental record within the meaning of chapter 37 of the penal code." State v. Vasilas, 153 S.W.3d 725, at *5 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. granted). The court of appeals reasoned that by including a court record in the definition of a governmental record, the legislature meant to exclude every type of court document that was not a court record. Since the definition of a court record under the Texas Penal Code is a document issued by a court, the court of appeals concluded that a pleading, such as a petition for expunction, which is created by a party or attorney and merely filed with a court, cannot be a governmental record. Having resolved this issue against the State, the court of appeals did not address whether Tex. Penal Code º 37.10 and Rule 13 were in pari materia.

Issue Presented

The State argues that "under the plain language of the statutory definition of 'governmental record,' which encompasses anything received by a court for information, a petition for expunction can be a governmental record even though it is filed with, not issued by, a court." The State asserts that the court of appeals' interpretation of the definition of a governmental record violates section 311.005(13) of the Texas Government Code, commonly referred to as the Code Construction Act, which defines "including" as a term of enlargement and not of limitation. Furthermore, the State submits that the court of appeals should not have looked beyond the plain language of the statute to its legislative history in discerning the meaning of a governmental record, and that it erred by misinterpreting the legislature's intent in amending the definition of governmental record in 1997 to include a court record. (3) While Appellee concedes that the word "including" is not itself a term of limitation, he argues that a petition for expunction does not qualify as a governmental record because: 1) the words "for information" in º 37.01(2)(A) exclude documents that seek to destroy information; 2) the legislature did not explicitly include pleadings within the definition of a governmental record; and 3) the petition for expunction was not a governmental record when the false entries were made. Although Appellee also advances the argument that º 37.10 and Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are in pari materia, the court of appeals did not reach this issue, and it is not the issue for which we granted review. We will reverse the court of appeals' decision.

Analysis

The resolution of this case depends on the meaning of the word "including" in the definition of "governmental record" in º 37.01(2)(A). The construction to be given a statute is a question of law. Johnson v. City of Fort Worth, 774 S.W.2d 653, 656 (Tex. 1989). In our leading statutory interpretation case, Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), we explained that courts must begin with the plain language of a statute in order to discern its meaning. This is because the court's interpretation of statutes must "seek to effectuate the 'collective' intent or purpose of the legislators who enacted the legislation." Id. at 785 (citing Camacho v. State, 765 S.W.2d 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). In Boykin, we established that if the literal text of the statute was clear and unambiguous, we would ordinarily give effect to that plain meaning. 818 S.W.2d at 785 (citing Smith v. State, 789 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). However, we also held:

If the plain language of a statute would lead to absurd results, or if the language is not plain but rather ambiguous, then and only then, out of absolute necessity, is it constitutionally permissible for a court to consider, in arriving at a sensible interpretation, such extratextual factors as executive or administrative interpretations of the statute or legislative history.

Id. at 785-86. The seminal rule of statutory construction is to presume that the legislature meant what it said. Seals v. State, 187 S.W.3d 417, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In adhering to this rule, we show our respect for the legislature and recognize that if it enacted into law something different from what it intended, it would amend the statute to conform to its intent. Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153, 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 542, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 1034, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) ("It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think . . . is the preferred result.")).

The legislature has provided the Code Construction Act to assist in statutory interpretation. It instructs that "words or phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly." Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. º 311.011(b) (Vernon 2005). In º 311.005(13) of the Code Construction Act, the legislature expressly stated its intent regarding its use of the word "including" in statutory provisions, providing: "'Includes' and 'including' are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded." Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. º 311.005(13) (Vernon 2005). This Court relied on º 311.005(13) in interpreting the statutory meaning of "including" in Grunsfeld v. State, 843 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (plurality opinion), superseded by statute, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07(3)(a) (Vernon Supp. 1994). Pursuant to º 311.005(13), we established that the list following "including" in Article 37.07(3)(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (4) was not exclusive as to the evidence admissible at the sentencing phase of trial, as long as it was relevant to sentencing. Grunsfeld, 843 S.W.2d at 525 (explaining that the legislature's use of the term "including" in amending Article 37.07(3)(a) rendered the list following it nonexclusive); see also Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d at 456-57 (holding that evidence concerning the activities of a gang, to which the appellant belonged, was admissible under Article 37.07(3)(a) because matters relevant to sentencing were not limited to "the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation and his character"). (5)

The lower courts have also interpreted the legislature's use of the word "including" as a means of illustration and not exclusion. For instance, in Leach v. State, the court of appeals applied º 311.005(13) to the defendant's community supervision condition, which tracked statutory language in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and held that the word "including" did not "creat[e] a presumption against further inclusion of terms not expressly stated." 170 S.W.3d 669, 673 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd) (holding that because "including" was a term of enlargement, the defendant had violated his community supervision by going within 1000 feet of a grassy area where children played, even though this location was not specified in the list of prohibited premises). Similarly, in Wilburn v. State, the court of appeals relied on º 311.005(13) to reject the appellant's argument that, by specifically including franchise taxes in the Franchise Tax Act, the legislature had intended to exclude directors' and officers' liability for all other taxes. 824 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, no pet.). In H.G. Sledge, Inc. v. Prospective Inv. & Trading Co., Ltd., this same court of appeals reasoned that the Railroad Commission of Texas's use of the word "including" in a notice provision did not create an exclusive list of interests entitled to notice. 36 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied). In fact, citing º 311.005(13), the court of appeals stated that "the Commission's use of the word 'include' in the provision signified that the list is not exclusive." Id. at 603 (emphasis added).

Both this Court and the lower courts of appeals have construed "including" as a term of enlargement in accordance with the legislature's intention. By employing the word "including" to illustrate an example of a governmental record, the legislature did not by its plain language intend to exclude documents that were filed with the court from the definition of º 37.01(2)(A). In spite of the fact that the word "including" is unambiguous and the legislature has assigned it a particular meaning of enlargement, Appellee argues that the definition of a governmental record still excludes the petition for expunction at issue.

First, Appellee claims that the legislature would have included pleadings in the express language of º 37.01(2)(A), if it had intended them to be governmental records. We have already explained that the legislature's decision to name a court record as an example of a governmental record does not narrow what qualifies as a governmental record. Furthermore, we agree with the State that "it is difficult to see how the legislature would have to make any additions to the definition of governmental record for the current word 'anything' to include a pleading." (6) Second, Appellee contends that the phrase "for information" in the definition of governmental record operates to exclude the petition for expunction because it seeks to destroy other governmental records. Just because the filing of a petition for expunction may result in the destruction of certain records does not take away from the fact that the petition gives the government information about which records the petitioner wants to expunge. Third, Appellee contends that the petition for expunction is not a governmental record because it had not been received by the government when the false entries were made. See Pokladnik v. State, 876 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.); Constructors Unlimited v. State, 717 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd). Appellee's argument is misplaced because he relies on cases in which defendants were charged under º 37.10(a)(1), which requires knowingly making a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record, and not under º 37.10(a)(5), which requires making, presenting, or using a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity. Although the petition for expunction was not a governmental record when Appellee prepared it, it became a governmental record once the court received it and he used it in seeking to obtain the expunction of records. See Morales v. State, 11 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that even if a petition containing signatures for placement on the ballot was not a governmental record when it was falsified, it became a governmental record after it was accepted by the party chairperson and the candidate relied on it to maintain his position on the ballot). We conclude that the legislature's definition of a governmental record is clear and unambiguous and may include a court record, such as the petition for expunction at issue.

Having established that the clear and unambiguous language of º 37.01(2)(A) does not exclude pleadings, such as a petition for expunction, from the definition of a governmental record, it is necessary to determine whether bringing the petition for expunction within the language of the statute would lead to an "absurd result that the legislature could not possibly have intended." Getts, 155 S.W.3d at 155 (citing Boykin, 818 S.W.2d at 785-86). Relying on º 311.021(5) of the Code Construction Act for the proposition that in enacting a statute, there is a presumption that public interest is favored over any private interest, Appellee describes the allegedly falsified petition for expunction as a mistaken pleading, the prosecution of which "would have a chilling effect upon our system of jurisprudence." He characterizes the result of including pleadings in the definition of a governmental record as: "the State's orwellian [sic] persecution of lawyers by attempting to deprive counselors licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas of their ability to earn a living practicing before our courts." Clearly, Appellee misses the point of º 37.10, which does not effectively disbar attorneys, but makes them criminally liable if they tamper with a governmental record. While º 37.10(a)(5) makes it an offense to make, present, or use a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity, º 37.10(a)(3) makes it an offense to intentionally destroy, conceal, remove, or impair a governmental record, which is effectively what the falsified petition for expunction was attempting to do. There is nothing absurd about the legislature seeking to prohibit these acts with respect to a petition for expunction or other pleadings, and these prohibitions do not preclude effective lawyering, as Appellee suggests, by forbidding attorneys from entering alternative pleadings. Tampering with a governmental record pursuant to the definitions of ºº 37.10(a)(3) and 37.10(a)(5) is very different from advocating a client's interests by advancing different legal theories which have bases in the facts and the law.

Furthermore, we have not often considered the issue of what constitutes a governmental record, but our caselaw indicates that there is nothing unique about a petition for expunction such that the legislature would seek to treat it differently from all the other records that would fall within its scope. For instance, applications for government benefits, such as the one in State v. Terrazas, 4 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), clearly qualify as governmental records. It is not at all absurd for the legislature to include pleadings within the meaning of a governmental record pursuant to º 37.10(a)(5). The legislature obviously meant to protect the people of the State by making it a crime to tamper with governmental records. By enacting º 37.10, the legislature intended to prevent a multitude of harms, including the destruction of governmental records, the perpetration of a fraud upon the court, and the miscarriage of justice that could result from the use of falsified records. There is nothing absurd about the legislature criminalizing such conduct.

Conclusion

Because the legislature's definition of a governmental record is clear and unambiguous, and including pleadings in this definition does not lead to an absurd result, it is unnecessary to examine the legislature's intent in amending the definition of a governmental record in 1997. The court of appeals erred in undertaking such an analysis. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the case for consideration of the second ground for review.

Meyers, J.

Delivered: March 22, 2006

Publish


1. Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure is entitled "Effect of Signing of Pleadings, Motions and Other Papers; Sanctions."

2. Section 37.10(a)(5) provides that a person commits the offense of tampering with a governmental record if he "makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity." Tex. Penal Code Ann. º 37.10(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). Pursuant to º 37.10(c)(1), this offense is "a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony." Tex. Penal Code Ann. º 37.10(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005).

3. In 1997, the legislature amended º 37.01 by adding the phrase "including a court record" to the definition of "governmental record" in what had previously been º 37.01(1)(A). The legislature moved the definition of governmental record from subsection (1) to subsection (2) and added a definition of a "court record" in º 37.01(1). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. º 37.01 (Vernon Supp. 1998).

4. At the time we decided
Grunsfield, Article 37.07(3)(a) provided that "regardless of the plea and whether the punishment be assessed by the judge or the jury, evidence may, as permitted by the Rules of Evidence, be offered by the state and the defendant as to any matter the court deems relevant to sentencing, including the prior criminal record of the defendant, his general reputation and his character." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07(3)(a) (Vernon Supp. 1991) (emphasis added). Subsequent to our decision in Grunsfeld, the legislature amended the language of º 37.07(3)(a) to clarify that evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses and prior bad acts were admissible at punishment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07(3)(a) (Vernon Supp. 1994); Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452, 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (plurality opinion) (McCormick, P.J., concurring).

5. Although we decided
Beasley in 1995, we relied on the earlier version of Article 37.07(3)(a), which we interpreted in Grunsfeld and which was in effect when the appellant had committed his offense.

6. The State first advanced this argument in its brief to the Fifth Court of Appeals.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Stop cornyn. dot com.......or are we so lo we mow our plot?

TLR~101
Posted on June 3, 2007 at 04:17:44 AM by d1

If you are injured, A testicle accidently amputated....or a sponge left in your belly during an appendectomy.

It will be a poetic justice for you to employ and fail 2 remember ur words....." be a huge mistake! Big PI trial lawyer".
Or are you special?

if you live through the "mistake"

Labels: , , , , , ,