In Defense Of Food Stamps

[pixy0stix]

www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/12/29/461409966/in-defense-of-food-stamps-why-the-white-house-sings-snaps-praises?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2057

And the report mentioned: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/SNAP_report_final_nonembargo.pdf

Early this month, House Speaker Paul Ryan asked a crowd in Washington, D.C., "What kind of country do we want to be?" As he unfurled his sweeping 2016 agenda, he returned to one of his signature issues: public benefit programs. There are just too many, and they don't work, he said: "We are trapping people in poverty."

Among the programs in Ryan's sights is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the federal government program also known as food stamps. But a few days after his speech, the White House came to SNAP's defense. The Council of Economic Advisers published a report painting a picture of an effective, albeit limited, program that feeds the hungry and thwarts poverty.

The federal food stamps program is working to make sure low-income Americans are getting enough calories, but those calories are less nutritious than what everyone else eats, research finds. The USDA is funding programs to try to bridge that gap, such as initiatives that allow food stamp recipients to use their benefits at farmers markets.
THE SALT
How America's Wealth Gap Shows Up On Our Dinner Plates
"New research has come out that is really compelling," says co-author and CEA member Sandra Black. "We think it is important to show that both the benefits of this program are huge and it's insufficient as it is."

Today 46.5 million Americans get SNAP benefits — on average about $125 a month per person to buy food from authorized retailers. The CEA report finds SNAP is best at doing what it's intended to do: keep people from going hungry. But it also reduces poverty overall. According to the authors, in 2014 the program kept close to 5 million people out of poverty, 2 million of them kids.

The Savory Summer Cobbler from the Cheap and Good cookbook features seasonal vegetables under a peppery biscuit crust.
THE SALT
Cheap Eats: A Cookbook For Eating Well On A Food Stamp Budget
Children whose parents are in the program start to reap benefits before birth, the report notes. Access to SNAP increased birth weight and reduced neonatal mortality; later in life it was linked to a reduced incidence of obesity and diabetes, a higher IQ, better education and higher income. For adults, the program can free up money for preventive medical care. One study found participants have more medical checkups compared with low-income people who didn't receive benefits.

Despite the positive impacts, the CEA says the benefits don't last through the month. When they run out, studies show, hospitalizations for hypoglycemia spike while kids' test scores drop off.

The report comes as budget proposals by Ryan and others have sought to cut the $73 billion program by 20 percent and transform it. Currently, it's an entitlement program with a flexible spending model that extends benefits to anyone who's eligible. The proposal is to change it to a block grant, which fixes funding and limits enrollment. Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee has hosted a series of hearings on SNAP as part of a full review. Next year, around a million people stand to lose benefits as provisions that kicked in during the recession expire.

Calls to reform SNAP have grown louder since rolls ballooned during the recession. Rates of food insecurity and SNAP participation haven't dropped to pre-recession rates, and politicians like Ryan say they are sick of the program's big price tag.

Proponents argue that the spike in participation just means the program is actually doing its job and responding to economic instability. Some 70 percent of SNAP users are in families with children; most participants are white, though African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented, and many are employed.

"SNAP is associated with lots of working poor, more than it used to be," says Elaine Waxman, a food assistance expert with the Urban Institute. "That reflects the struggle people have to live on the available hours and wages."

While battles over the scope of the program aren't new, SNAP has generally enjoyed broad support. But there's real concern in some corners that it's dissipating. "I would not underestimate the potential threat that the program is under politically at this point," says James Ziliak, director of the nonpartisan Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky and editor of a new book titled SNAP Matters: How Food Stamps Affect Health and Well-Being.

Last year, as Congress wrangled over a new farm bill, which funds the program, the House pushed to cut $40 billion from SNAP and severely limited eligibility (the compromise bill will cut $8 billion over 10 years). The debate was acrimonious. When the farm bill is up for reauthorization in 2018, it may only get more heated.

Luke Tate, a senior policy adviser on the White House Domestic Policy Council, blames the waning support in part on a lack of information.

"The pattern that we have seen over the past couple of years of losing the strong bipartisan support for both the efficacy of this program and the general principle that we shouldn't be letting American families go hungry is troubling," he says, especially given the evidence.

Still, not all research shows SNAP is successful.

"There are some mixed results," Ziliak says, "especially when it comes to obesity." Obesity rates are known to be high among SNAP recipients, but the program's role in that is difficult to tease out, and there are few good studies.

Overall, though, Ziliak says, the most rigorous research available suggests SNAP has a positive impact on families.

What we now call SNAP grew out of farm support programs put in place during the Great Depression. When crop prices plummeted in the early 1930s, the government stepped in to help farmers by buying commodities, then distributed those goods to hungry families through relief agencies. Today the program can still be seen as a boon to farmers — and to communities generally. The USDA estimates that every dollar in SNAP spending generates $1.79 in economic activity. "People think of it as a drain," says the Urban Institute's Waxman, "but it's an economic generator."

A booming economy might lower the number of people in the program, but for the two-thirds of SNAP participants who don't work — children, the elderly and the disabled — it wouldn't make a difference. And, rolling it back could result in costs that would outweigh any savings. "Basically," Ziliak says, "penny wise, pound foolish."

[OscarQ]

I fail at quoting but this PISSED me off.

"Early this month, House Speaker Paul Ryan asked a crowd in Washington, D.C., "What kind of country do we want to be?" As he unfurled his sweeping 2016 agenda, he returned to one of his signature issues: public benefit programs. There are just too many, and they don't work, he said: "We are trapping people in poverty."

...

The federal food stamps program is working to make sure low-income Americans are getting enough calories, but those calories are less nutritious than what everyone else eats, research finds.

...

Today 46.5 million Americans get SNAP benefits — on average about $125 a month per person to buy food from authorized retailers. The CEA report finds SNAP is best at doing what it's intended to do: keep people from going hungry. But it also reduces poverty overall. According to the authors, in 2014 the program kept close to 5 million people out of poverty, 2 million of them kids."

What kind of country do I want to live in? One were 46.5 f'ing million people don't need f'ing SNAP benefits to afford food. We can do better than this shit. Are we trapping people in poverty? Probably and there are real, systemic reasons we can actually address to resolve those issues. But by all means let's ignore all that and attack a dam program that is putting food on the tables of 15% of our fellow citizens.

Damn this shit pisses me off. I didn't chime in on the HRC middle class taxes thing but my H and I fall just beneath that $250k threshold. Do I want my taxes to go up? HELL YES if it fixes shit like this because I like when people don't go hungry. It'd be even better if it bought them more and better quality food but that ties into the whole food desert issue. I'm a rising tide lifts all boats type person - and if that rising tide is my taxes, so be it.

[darnkatz]

My kids eat because of SNAP. We get an amount that barely gets us through the month - and sometimes, it doesn't do that and we are scrambling. My husband has been out of work since May. WHY WOULD WE WANT THIS? It's not some goddamn happy fun time that we just want to continue on with for the rest of our lives. It is stressful beyond words worrying about this shit. I feel like my brain is going to explode trying to navigate all of this, trying to dispel fallacies, trying to just make it through another day without breaking the fuck down. I am poor. I'm sorry that makes you angry, GOP. Do something about it besides taking food away from children who have no choice.

[Deleted]

Trapping people in poverty by making sure they have enough to eat? That doesn't even make sense logically.

[penguingrrl]

I love that the reform suggested involves punishing poor people and especially poor children rather than making minimum wage a living wage and discouraging companies from systemically making a business model of keeping their employees in poverty.

[claudiajean]

I'm a little annoyed by the fact that the article implies a trade-off of the SNAP program is a rise in obesity. I would rather have people (especially children) not going hungry even if it means that they are considered obese.

[darnkatz]

Dec 30, 2015 13:23:08 GMT -5 claudiajean said:

I'm a little annoyed by the fact that the article implies a trade-off of the SNAP program is a rise in obesity. I would rather have people (especially children) not going hungry even if it means that they are considered obese.

They should probably look into the fact that people on SNAP have to stretch their allotment each month, which means they are more than likely buying more processed foods (especially if they are working, because who the fuck has time to make gourmet food when you get home at 6-8PM with small children, possibly taking transit?). You know, because common sense.


Many people also just have no idea how to prepare healthy foods or do not have access to it because of food deserts. 

[Deleted]

Just feed the poor people. Please! They are not getting one over on anyone.

I don't know what the SNAP income requirements are, but I'm sure it's not high. If someone makes $20k or less a year, life is not easy, no matter how little they work a job.

I think the Democrats are doing a terrible job of messaging why we have and need these programs.

[thebulldog]

46.5 million people get food stamps?

Am i reading that right?

Bc it seems to me the solution is not to cut those benefits but figure out wtf is going on to make that many people require assistance.




Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards

[jillboston]

This reminds me.... Heard on NPR on Monday that the acquisitions/expenditure department of the Pentagon is getting its first outside audit in FIFTY YEARS.
I hope to see Paul Ryan having ragey press conferences about the fucking billions of dollars of government waste and fraud in *that* program.

yes. Let's nickel and dime Americans over how much food they fucking need.

[jeaniebueller]

Has Paul Ryan ever met anyone who uses SNAP benefits? Because he talks like someone who truly has no clue. None.

[meshaliuknits]

Dec 30, 2015 13:25:29 GMT -5 @kcpokergal said:

Just feed the poor people. Please! They are not getting one over on anyone.

This right here.

[josieposy]

Dec 30, 2015 13:30:37 GMT -5 jillboston said:

This reminds me.... Heard on NPR on Monday that the acquisitions/expenditure department of the Pentagon is getting its first outside audit in FIFTY YEARS.
I hope to see Paul Ryan having ragey press conferences about the fucking billions of dollars of government waste and fraud in *that* program.

yes. Let's nickel and dime Americans over how much food they fucking need.

Ooooh. I want to see that report.

[simpsongal]

I bought kraft mac and cheese and broccoli at the store the other day. The broccoli was about $1.50 (2 big servings), the mac was $1 on sale. One of those is shelf stable and can feed a few people, the other isn't exactly a meal.

Also, I'm pretty sure both purchases would have been much pricier in food deserts.

[macmars45]

This makes me so angry!

One of my coworkers/friends is on food stamps as she's a single mom to two boys working full time as a *Head Start preschool teacher. How fuck up is it that every employee working in the classroom with our preschoolers can qualify for the services we offer? If it weren't for my H, I'd qualify. Most employees are lucky enough to have a spouse that actually makes a living wage. If not, you're screwed.

*Head Start is a preschool program for kids from lower income families (in case some people don't know).

[laurack]

Yes clearly we are making it far too easy for these poor people. Who would ever want to better themselves when they have it so very easy right?? Living the dream right there these people

The solution. Next time people show up for their meager food stamps to feed their family they get this instead



You'll thank us later friend.

[sangria]

$125 a month?!?

Jesus h. Christ. My family of four spends that in like 4 days.

WTF

[isabel]

Dec 30, 2015 22:52:33 GMT -5 sangria said:

$125 a month?!?

Jesus h. Christ. My family of four spends that in like 4 days.

WTF

Right? I mean, I'm not exactly clipping coupons over here, but our weekly food budget is more than that for two.

There's not really anything I hear lately that doesn't make me feel ashamed of the state of this country.

[elleblue]

Dec 30, 2015 13:29:59 GMT -5 thebulldog said:

46.5 million people get food stamps?

Am i reading that right?

Bc it seems to me the solution is not to cut those benefits but figure out wtf is going on to make that many people require assistance.

Oh we know. But it's easier to let influential corporations underpay their workers and have fully employed people struggle to make ends meet, needing programs like SNAP to be able to feed their children, than it is to cut into corporate profits. 

[emilyj]

Dec 30, 2015 13:29:59 GMT -5 thebulldog said:

46.5 million people get food stamps?

Am i reading that right?

Bc it seems to me the solution is not to cut those benefits but figure out wtf is going on to make that many people require assistance.




Sent from my SM-G900P using proboards

So much for all of that GOP focus on jobs, jobs, jobs!!!!

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2015 0:33:51 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Dec 30, 2015 13:29:59 GMT -5 thebulldog said:

46.5 million people get food stamps?

Am i reading that right?

Bc it seems to me the solution is not to cut those benefits but figure out wtf is going on to make that many people require assistance.

Oh we know. But it's easier to let influential corporations underpay their workers and have fully employed people struggle to make ends meet, needing programs like SNAP to be able to feed their children, than it is to cut into corporate profits. 

This. People who have the Waltons' kind of money are political donors and can hire lobbyists and what do politicians treasure above all else? Getting relected which costs a lot of money. I'm sure some do care about the catch 22 we're creating here but not as much as they care about their own careers.