It Makes a Difference to the Sheep

WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT? I was shopping at Food Lion the other day (not by choice, Food Lion just happens to be the closet grocery store to our home) and was in line behind a girl who was probably in her early 20's. She was purchasing some groceries that included a few staples--butter, milk, bread--and a few items--soda, chips, ice cream--that may or may not have been intended for use in a party. Why my deduction about the party? Because she was talking to someone on a sleek, tiny cell-phone about said get-together and whether she should pick up a video to bring to it etc. I was a somewhat jarred when I saw her pay for the food with food stamps. This elicited two very different responses from me. One was of the "so what?" type. After all, do I really wish to consign anyone who receives welfare benefits from the government to permanent non-partying status as long as they receive said benefits? Should welfare recipients never be allowed to by chips or Coca Cola? I don't really think that they should be continually working three jobs or getting education or training without any break do I? No, I suppose I don't. But the second reaction to this scene was centered more on the cell phone than on the junk food video fest to come. In short, we have not had a cell phone until a few months ago. And then it was only because the prospect of both my wife and I commuting up and down I-95 with no way of communicating in the event of emergency that finally prodded us to get the cheapest phones available using pre-paid minutes that we only use in case of emergency. And here was this girl chatting away on one of those newfangled phones that take pictures, play video games, and probably balances your checkbook to boot. And she was able to buy it with my money. Of course I may have misread the whole situation. She may have been using the food stamps to buy food not for herself but for a shut-in widow, something she has selflessly done for the last five years. She may have borrowed the cellphone. But I couldn't help but feel some resentment at the whole scene.

Am I being petty and judgmental? Probably. Should recipients of welfare be allowed to receive benefits only if they demonstrate monastic frugality and asceticism, not to mention a proper attitude of gratitude? Probably not. Am I a recipient of government aid (student loans, mortgage tax deduction)? Yes. But do I, nevertheless, have any right to righteous indignation? Your comments are most appreciated.