[...]

In its letter, a Department of Public Welfare official wrote that the proposed asset test would bar anyone under 60 from receiving food stamps if they have more than $2,000 in savings or assets subject to the rule. The limit would be $3,250 for households with someone who is over 60 or disabled.

Advocates for the poor are criticizing the plans, saying the asset limit proposed is unusually punitive and will create barriers for people who genuinely need the federal food subsidy. In addition, imposing the test could absorb caseworkers' time and create delays for people who genuinely qualify, they said.

But Miller said the outlines of the asset test included in the letter were not necessarily final and were based on the previous asset test imposed by Pennsylvania before then-Gov. Ed Rendell did away with it in 2008.

The assets of many recipients were already screened for other welfare programs and dropping the test would encourage low-income households to save more, his administration said at the time.

Many other states got rid or relaxed asset tests during the recession, although the administration of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder last year began imposing an asset test, albeit one with higher limits.

Thirty-five other states do not enforce an asset test, while four states have raised their minimum allowable assets to $5,000 or more, according to an analysis by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization Food Research and Action Center.

Currently, Pennsylvanians can get food stamps if they make 160 percent or less of the federal poverty level—or about $35,300 for a family of four—which puts it in the middle of the pack of states in generosity. But applicants in Pennsylvania who earn more than that may be able to qualify by deducting expenses for things like housing, medical treatment and child or dependent care.

A household with an elderly or disabled member can count income up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

Food stamps are designed to subsidize food purchases at grocery stores and supermarkets for the poor. Benefits range in amount; the maximum for a family of four is $668 a month.

Miller said the department believes the asset test would eliminate the benefit for about 2 percent of food stamp recipients. The $2,000 asset limit has been in law since the 1980s, although states are not required to enforce it.

Houses and retirement benefits would be exempt from being counted as assets. If a person owns a car, that vehicle also would also be exempt, but any additional vehicle worth more than $4,650 would be considered a countable asset.

Anne Bale, a spokeswoman for DPW, said the asset test was a way to ensure that "people with resources are not taking advantage of the food-stamp program," funded by federal money.

In addition, Bale said, the test was related to DPW Secretary Gary Alexander's initiative to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse across all department programs.

Bale said DPW estimated that 2 percent of the 1.8 million Pennsylvanians receiving food stamps would be affected by the asset test.

The DPW plan caught many by surprise, but has been widely condemned by Philadelphia city officials, business leaders statewide, and advocates for the poor.

They point to federal statistics showing that Pennsylvania has one of the lowest food-stamp fraud rates in the nation: one-tenth of 1 percent.

In fact, the state recently won a federal award for running its program efficiently, federal officials say.

Moreover, about 30 percent of people who are eligible for food stamps in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation don't access them, making the entitlement program under-subscribed.

Critics of the DPW plan say it would particularly punish elderly people saving for their burials, poor people trying to save enough money to get out of poverty, and working- and middle-class people who lost their jobs in the recession and may now have to liquidate assets to feed their families.