Well Heritage may say it's non-partisan, but they are apologetically conservative and say so. It's a research arm of the republican party.

I don't really care for most of their solutions but a few seem worth looking at.

Their proposals. 1. Cap food stamp spending. Ehhhh, seems like the goal is to make sure people in the wealthiest country in the world don't go hungry, I guess if you don't care if people go hungry because they can't afford food then this makes decent sense.

2. Transfer food stamps from the USDA to HSS. I don't see how the money that trickles down to farmers would be changed by if HSS took control. As long as you can buy food with food stamps then the program is still a food welfare and farm welfare program. Votes on the food stamp program often pulls bi-partisan support from farm and urban legislators for exactly this reason (less so now a days with the Tea Party, they actually put their money where their mouth is and vote contrary to their constituents best interest for ethical reasons). Maybe I don't understand the how this would change the program, it isn't obvious to me. Seems like changing who is control would add costs to the program during the bureaucratic shuffle so I hope there is some kind of compelling theory for what this will achieve. I found the paper this was quoted from and the authors in no way explain what the bureaucratic shuffle do to change the incentives.

3 and 4. Close loopholes in food stamp enrollment, reduce fraud. Probably the best argument for reform in the program. I have known people who have gamed the food stamp program by lying about their income or who have plenty of money socked away in the bank but are out of a job for the moment who are taking advantage of a free lunch. It would be best to do a CBA to see if the money it would cost to means test applicants would be worth the savings of weeding people out, otherwise it's just another layer of bureaucracy.

5. Not everyone on food stamps is a position to seek work. People who are caught up in a medical emergency or who have chronic heath problems or are caring for family members with the same are reliant on the program as much as you might want to make this a work incentive program I think there might be better ways to accomplish this goal.

6. Drugs, drugs drugs!!! I don't know, seems like a personal preoccupation of the foundation or authors. Maybe they didn't buy them, a friend passed the joint, whatever. Should pedophiles also be banned from the program? What about people who have cable? Cable always seems like an unreasonable luxury for someone who needs my money. Maybe we can have the food stamp gestapo go around and make sure they aren't drinking liquor, smoking cigs, going to the movies, doing drugs ect. Plenty of hardworking Americans go to their job each day so they can buy drugs. I did some searches on the topic of drug use, income and welfare, all the sites that used data showed that drug use is about the same for welfare recipients and non-welfare recipients. Let me caution, the only sites that supported this view were the ones that used data to support their assertions, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm guess that

With welfare users twice as likely as the general public to use illegal drugs

is Heritage just making shit up.

Personally I favor the idea of a means based welfare system that gives people a flat cash amount that will provide a meager substance life. It's an idea put forth my Milton Friedman that has been discussed on Hubski a few times. Make every two dollars earned on the job reduce benefits by one dollar and it's a work incentive program. It would strip all kinds of needless government spending and bureaucracy out of the system. There is probably way to much paternalism/big brotherness on both sides of the isle for this kind of proposal to ever be taken seriously.