Cuts in funding for SNAP card benefits (food stamps) went into effect Friday, immediately decreasing the amount of food the program's recipients have access to. Funding will soon take another (drastic) cut if Congressional Republicans have their way. Budget negotiations happening now on the House floor are not about whether to decrease food stamp benefits. Instead, we're watching a debate about how many billions to cut. The GOP has pulled it off again, shaping the parameters of the discourse with another telling of the timeworn fairy tale - a horror story of hard-earned tax dollars gobbled up by the grocery grubbing, benefits bilking, food stamp fraudster. And based on the arguments we are--and are not--hearing from House Democrats, they have bought into the premise.
| SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the modern version of the federal food stamp program. Funds for food purchases for eligible families are loaded monthly onto an EBT card, similar to a debit card. Eligibility and requirements are set state-by-state, but an example of the average income level eligible for SNAP benefits is a two-person household grossing at or below $2,100 per month. In every state there are work requirements and time limits for people receiving benefits, and strict rules for allowable purchases. SNAP cards will not pay for alcohol, cigarettes, personal hygiene products, pet food, cleaning supplies, or, interestingly, food that is "hot at the time of sale." In other words, your SNAP card will reject an attempt to purchase a rotisserie chicken. Justification for reducing federal spending on SNAP usually centers on claims that there is rampant fraud and abuse in the program. Contrary to this classic story, the fact is that this program, throughout its various iterations, from Depression era food stamps to today's cards (which make it harder than ever to make unapproved purchases) has proven decade after decade to be a model of integrity and efficiency. According to extensive, ongoing research published by the Congressional Budget Office, the USDA, which runs the program, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities a nonpartisan policy research center, the program operates at roughly a 3% level of waste and fraud, almost unheard of bureaucratic program this size. It's a cinch to sound credible accusing a government program of being rife with abuse and fraud. But if someone, someone, (come on, Democrats!) were to ask for evidence, Republicans would be unable to prove anything of the kind. | Straw Man 101 Time for Show & Tell "We want to work with our Democratic colleagues in Congress to implememnt reforms in the SNAP program to cut back on waste, fraud, and abuse." - Rep. Steve King, (R), Iowa show and tell about the "waste, fraud, and abuse." "We want to ensure that truly vulnerable families receive the support they need in a more efficient and effective manner." - Rep. Steve Southerland, (R) FL "Why does the safety net need reform? Because people are getting tangled up and stuck in it. The House addresses this by ending benefits for individuals that, quite honestly, don't qualify for them." - Rep. Randy Neugebauer, (R) TX "Asking people to work in return for food stamps is not any kind of cruel and unusual punishment. The dignity of work has been a pretty common theme throughout all the ages." - Rep. Mike Conaway, (R) TX |
A repeated concern stated in the debate is about the rise of spending within the program--about the fact that more people than ever applying for and receiving supplemental nutritional assistance. Indeed. It's hard to say how that can be seen as a sign of increased abuse of the system, when the reality is more straightforward: in 2013, more people than ever are making too little to feed their families.
This mainstream Republican disingenuous tale-telling does a disservice to the general public, certainly, but it is also unfair to those on the hard right with authentic philosophical objections to an economic model that uses tax revenue for social spending. Why aren't they asking to be heard right now, too?
Where are the purer voices of those on the right who share with the left the imperative that Americans have a safety net, but want to see it realized using components of the free market like charity and philanthropy? Where is the bold leadership of fiscal conservatives, driven by authentic concerns about hunger, who believe it is a problem solvable, even at the scale it exists in this country today, through dedicated charity and creative, for-profit, public-private partnerships ventures. That pulling together such solutions is better than massive, detached, government outlays.
At least heartfelt, intelligent proposals would encourage a more substantive dialogue.
This mainstream Republican disingenuous tale-telling does a disservice to the general public, certainly, but it is also unfair to those on the hard right with authentic philosophical objections to an economic model that uses tax revenue for social spending. Why aren't they asking to be heard right now, too?
Where are the purer voices of those on the right who share with the left the imperative that Americans have a safety net, but want to see it realized using components of the free market like charity and philanthropy? Where is the bold leadership of fiscal conservatives, driven by authentic concerns about hunger, who believe it is a problem solvable, even at the scale it exists in this country today, through dedicated charity and creative, for-profit, public-private partnerships ventures. That pulling together such solutions is better than massive, detached, government outlays.
At least heartfelt, intelligent proposals would encourage a more substantive dialogue.
| | My own feelings about the latter economic philosophy may be obvious. While life-long reliance on a flawed bureaucratic safety net is nobody's goal, I believe that the wide-spread, generational, community-wide, debilitating poverty we're looking at today in the U.S. can be transformed by investment and support on a scale that only our federal government can muster. It's a matter of righting the ship. Folks who don't want to unpack how we got here may recuse themselves, as long as we can finally find consensus on the idea that pouring tax dollars into benefits and programs that help people survive and move towards a stable, tax-paying, middle-class situation is sound strategy. That's where I am, but I would welcome an argument about domestic fiscal policy in honest terms. Instead, we confront an unabashed, sophomoric campaign of moral disapproval, of assigning the lowest motivations and devious manipulations of a wide swath Americans presumed to be bent on avoiding work, working the system, and coasting on government largess. Republican House members espouse and exploit a fear of the moocher that is barely still acceptable among their constituency, and not at all among its representatives. It’s based on lingering stereotypes that once sprang from gut provincialism, festering in a time before comprehensive information about class norms was widely accessible. When leaders with the resources of the modern day member of Congress internalize and articulate those fears, at televised hearings, in tones utterly dripping with frankness and reason, as though they have no way of knowing otherwise, it is hard to forgive. |
Democrats in Congress must keep telling the real story. It is simply not true that people receiving food stamps sit around idle, gorging on luxury foods billed to taxpayers, growing ever more fond of being poor, losing their incentive to work, purposely making less than their earning potential so they will qualify for benefits. Ever since social safety-net programs were introduced, such a picture has been painted. It has developed for some into preoccupation with a fear that millions of Americans will find living at this level, with means and status so low that they qualify for food stamps, is tempting enough to vanquish any motivation to succeed.
Even before we had a chance to study and answer such questions, some could see it was an unrealistic concern. Nutrition assistance in the US is a bare-bones benefit. There are purchasing restrictions, and the allowances are modest. There is social stigma associated with using food stamps. These benefits don't provide people with anything they want out of life, except survival. There's nothing enjoyable about making so little money you qualify for food stamps.
But because this question has been a fundamental concern for some, and does have huge policy implications, it has been rigorously studied and explored. These questions have always been asked, and there are now decades of research to answer them. There is no evidence that negative societal outcomes, or the degradation of character, can be associated with food assistance. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to show otherwise. Such information is easy enough for the layperson to find. Members of the US Congress cannot be excused for ignoring the literature - wide-ranging and multi-disciplinary – addressing these fears. Let them at least put up applicable research and shoot it down. Let them explain why their fears are unabated. But they can’t pretend it is legitimate to wonder - in the face of more than half a century of accumulated knowledge in behavioral and social psychology – if maaaybe receiving free supplemental nutrition coupons is so intrinsically rewarding that eventually, long-suffering productive citizens will be unable to lure legions of their fellow Americans away from the seductions of poverty.
Even before we had a chance to study and answer such questions, some could see it was an unrealistic concern. Nutrition assistance in the US is a bare-bones benefit. There are purchasing restrictions, and the allowances are modest. There is social stigma associated with using food stamps. These benefits don't provide people with anything they want out of life, except survival. There's nothing enjoyable about making so little money you qualify for food stamps.
But because this question has been a fundamental concern for some, and does have huge policy implications, it has been rigorously studied and explored. These questions have always been asked, and there are now decades of research to answer them. There is no evidence that negative societal outcomes, or the degradation of character, can be associated with food assistance. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to show otherwise. Such information is easy enough for the layperson to find. Members of the US Congress cannot be excused for ignoring the literature - wide-ranging and multi-disciplinary – addressing these fears. Let them at least put up applicable research and shoot it down. Let them explain why their fears are unabated. But they can’t pretend it is legitimate to wonder - in the face of more than half a century of accumulated knowledge in behavioral and social psychology – if maaaybe receiving free supplemental nutrition coupons is so intrinsically rewarding that eventually, long-suffering productive citizens will be unable to lure legions of their fellow Americans away from the seductions of poverty.
| Finally, if you hear it said that a 5% reduction in benefits isn’t all that painful, truly consider the source. A favorite chapter in the fairy-tale is about how easy it is to live on so little. If we want to know about the impact of cuts, there are plenty of reliable sources. Perhaps we should be hearing testimony from program administrators trained to do needs-assessments and impact studies. Or from case managers who work directly with needy families. But sure, sometimes anecdotal evidence can help us understand how policy decisions may be felt by those affected. Just make sure you are hearing less from those who want to experiment and speculate on the impact of a 5% funding adjustment, and more from those who will open their own cabinets to see 5% less food. | "Food stamps have played and will continue to play an important role in taking care of out most needy Americans. But the program exists to help lift up those who have hit bottom, not keep them there." - Rep. Martha Roby, (R) AL |
I was reflecting on that impact as I did my own shopping yesterday. I have more grocery money to work with than I used to. I still have to mentally add up the price of each item I put in my cart to make sure I have enough to cover my total, and it gets tight. But it’s nothing like the distress I used to feel grocery shopping when our family was young. I can still get a knot in my stomach remembering it. Slogging through the aisles with hungry kids in tow, trying to solve the problem of how to get enough food with not enough money. I remember the frustrated, primal longing to nourish my family. I remember trying to appear cheerfully reassuring while churning with feelings of dread, anxiety and inadequacy that were almost unbearable. I remember all of this going on in the aisle of a grocery store while reaching for a jar of peanut butter.
It came back in waves yesterday, thinking about the food stamp cuts as I shopped. When I went to check out, I saw that there were small signs posted at each register informing or reminding shoppers with SNAP cards that their benefit reductions were effective immediately. The sign explained that cashiers would be glad to check the balance on their cards. My heart sank realizing there were lots of moms and dads and others who would arrive at the register to see this just after completing the exhausting experience I described. Because I wasn’t unique - when every item you pull off the shelf or pass up has repercussions for your own hunger or that of your dependents, whether young, elderly or disabled; groceries become more than boxes and cans of food. There really is both a physical and emotional impact.
So they will get to the front of the store after the selecting, subtracting, second-guessing, and strategizing, to realize that regardless of how well they'd done, they went over by 5%. To use the figure the Associated Press is reporting as an example, that’s a reduction of about $36 dollars for a family of four. That means taking back out of the cart $36 worth of fruit, beans, cereal, meat, and juice. Kids, perhaps, in tow. This is not a fairy-tale.
As the nation debates food stamp funding, let's keep it honest. The program works. It does what it sets out to do. It helps poor people get basic food they can't otherwise afford. The program has low overhead, and measurable positive outcomes. If you think there is a better way to get food into empty tummies, lay out your plan. If you think doing so is not an appropriate function of government, make your case. But don't just sit and spin a scary yarn, or sit silent while others in your party do so. We don’t need the fairy-tale; the true story is harrowing enough.
-Julie Boler
It came back in waves yesterday, thinking about the food stamp cuts as I shopped. When I went to check out, I saw that there were small signs posted at each register informing or reminding shoppers with SNAP cards that their benefit reductions were effective immediately. The sign explained that cashiers would be glad to check the balance on their cards. My heart sank realizing there were lots of moms and dads and others who would arrive at the register to see this just after completing the exhausting experience I described. Because I wasn’t unique - when every item you pull off the shelf or pass up has repercussions for your own hunger or that of your dependents, whether young, elderly or disabled; groceries become more than boxes and cans of food. There really is both a physical and emotional impact.
So they will get to the front of the store after the selecting, subtracting, second-guessing, and strategizing, to realize that regardless of how well they'd done, they went over by 5%. To use the figure the Associated Press is reporting as an example, that’s a reduction of about $36 dollars for a family of four. That means taking back out of the cart $36 worth of fruit, beans, cereal, meat, and juice. Kids, perhaps, in tow. This is not a fairy-tale.
As the nation debates food stamp funding, let's keep it honest. The program works. It does what it sets out to do. It helps poor people get basic food they can't otherwise afford. The program has low overhead, and measurable positive outcomes. If you think there is a better way to get food into empty tummies, lay out your plan. If you think doing so is not an appropriate function of government, make your case. But don't just sit and spin a scary yarn, or sit silent while others in your party do so. We don’t need the fairy-tale; the true story is harrowing enough.
-Julie Boler
