BY CAITLIN GRIFFIN —
The fate of millions of America’s most vulnerable citizens lies in the hands of the House and Senate conference committee on the next farm bill. The farm bill is renewed roughly every five years. Among the vital programs under review in the farm bill, the conferees will assess competing cuts proposed by both houses to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”), commonly known as food stamps. SNAP provides over 47 million participants – approximately 1 in 7 Americans – in about 23 million low-income households with nutrition assistance or benefits to purchase food. Since the recession in 2008, SNAP’s cost has doubled to somewhere around $80 billion. But in its entirety, the farm bill costs almost a trillion dollars over a ten year period.
In 2009, during the first few months of Obama’s presidency, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to stimulate the economy. A small portion of the stimulus funds increased the maximum food stamp benefit by 13.6 percent. As of November 1, 2013, the stimulus funds expired resulting in a $5 billion loss in SNAP funds over the next year. Unfortunately, the expiration of the stimulus funds coincided with the renewal of the farm bill which has prompted heightened scrutiny of SNAP by both houses. The result: millions of Americans still struggling to survive in a post-recession landscape will go hungry.
In the debate over reducing SNAP costs, lots of numbers are being thrown around. And, the numbers cited in many articles are dropped with little context to ground them in reality. Without context, the huge price tag on critical government programs like SNAP can provoke sticker shock and induce reflexive urges to slash spending. Indeed, the current bills passed by the Senate and the House both propose significant reductions. While the White House would like to see no cuts to SNAP funding, in ten years time, the Senate bill proposes to cut SNAP by $4 billion and the House proposes to cut it by $39 billion. But lawmakers, including the farm bill conferees, need to ground their actions in service to their constituents.
First, in the fiscal year 2013, 61 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly people, or disabled nonelderly people. Almost all SNAP participants, 98 percent to be exact, lived in households with income below 100 percent of the United States Department of Agriculture poverty guideline. Despite the fact that 60 percent of eligible individuals had income at or below poverty, 83 percent of participating individuals had a gross income at or below the poverty line.
Still, many conservatives criticize the lack of any asset test to SNAP eligibility. Thus, the Republican-majority House seeks to restore the asset test to SNAP in the next farm bill among other changes. But anti-hunger advocates argue that such asset tests were intentionally left out by a bipartisan Congress that gave states the option to remove the asset test. That Congress determined that in the fight to overcome poverty, working poor families with children may need to acquire some assets. In fact, the Asset Building Project at the nonpartisan New America Foundation argues that “Asset limits exemplify the kind of senseless red-tape that states have worked for years to clear out,” because they “are a waste of time and resources.” This argument is strengthened by USDA research which found that the average SNAP recipient has just over $300 in savings, well below the $2,000 level being proposed by the House.
Second, the benefits offered by SNAP serve as a thin safety net with almost no room for error in their use. In fiscal year 2013, the average household benefit was $292 per month. After the expiration of stimulus funds, a family of four now receives a maximum monthly benefit of $632. To put this number in perspective, the USDA publishes food plans detailing the average cost of food at home at four levels: (1) thrifty plan; (2) low-cost plan; (3) moderate-cost plan; and (4) liberal plan. According to its September 2013 plan, the United States average monthly food cost for a family of four at each level was as follows: (1) $637.70; (2) $832.30; (3) $1041.90; and (4) $1262.70. Regardless of family size, SNAP allots only $1.40 per person per meal or less than $5 per person per day.
Regardless, critics of SNAP, like Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, opine that the program is “rife with fraud.” SNAP fraud has also been characterized as trafficking where participants allegedly sell their SNAP benefits for cash in violation of federal law. In actuality, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that only 1 percent of SNAP benefits is trafficked. Further, while some have criticized the relatively new electronic debit card form of SNAP benefits, these cards have been a key tool for the USDA in reducing trafficking.
Finally, the increased cost of SNAP has mirrored the recession and appropriately responded to meet the needs of millions of Americans living in bleak circumstances. In its 2012 report on SNAP, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that “the primary reason for the increase in the number of participants was the deep recession . . . and subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant legislative expansions.” Simply put, when the economy suffers, SNAP participation increases because the number of people in poverty increases. And, even though the economy has been improving, low-income people see rebounds slower. As the economy continues to recover, policy analysts predict that within ten years, SNAP spending will shrink back to its pre-recession levels.
The anticipated compromise devised by the conferees on the next farm bill is unlikely to result any winners. The substantial cuts to SNAP will not pull the government out of its deficit and the poorest Americans will need to learn to make do with very little, if they are lucky enough to remain eligible for SNAP. Many anti-hunger advocates and nonpartisan policy centers – like the Brookings Institute – urge Congress to focus on tax and entitlement reform before cutting spending on essential programs for the poor. Congress has a duty to serve the interests of its constituents particularly considering 1 in 7 of Americans participate in SNAP.
