Danielle Walker, 37, was shopping at a discount Aldi store in Morgantown, W.Va., with what little cash she had, the end of September still three days away. Her food stamps had run out because of a previous cut from $500 to $61 a month that came about when the father of her 12-year-old son died, giving the boy survivor benefits that changed the family's income level.
With two disabled sons, 12 and 16, each with different dietary requirements, she can barely imagine how she'll absorb another cut. So, she'll visit food pantries, clip coupons and shop at the least expensive stores she can find. She also explains her situation to manufacturers, who send coupons.
"I'm a mom who does outside-of-the-box things," she said, adding, "I have to feed my boys."
But the stimulus was never intended to be a permanent source of money, said former New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg. He opposed the stimulus, calling it at the time "a great deal of money not well spent."
"All stimulus funding was to be temporary," Gregg, now the CEO of a banking industry group, said Wednesday.
John Cochrane, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, also opposed the stimulus, saying it advanced the false assumption that "completely wasted federal spending helps the economy."
He said that worries about people who need help were a legitimate concern but that food stamps create a disincentive to move to find a better job because recipients are worried they'll lose the benefit.
"At some point," he said, "you have to be a little bit heartless."
One recipient, Jennifer Donald, a 31-year-old mother of three in Philadelphia, said she counts on the family's $460 monthly benefit to put food on the table. Her husband has a job sanitizing machines at meat-packing plants but it doesn't pay enough. She'll have to reduce the quality of the food she buys to stretch the benefits, then turn to food pantries once the money runs out.