Here in farm country, the
politics of agriculture can mean the difference between profit and loss.
Billions of dollars in subsidies to farmers are given out each year by
Congress. Mandating ethanol mixed into gasoline raises the price of corn, and
has led to the expansion of acreage in corn across the Midwest.
Millions of Americans who are
not farmers also depend financially on farm legislation. Since 1973, every
congressional farm bill has included the food stamp program, now called SNAP,
run by the Department of Agriculture. That is, until last week, when
Republicans in the House passed a farm bill with no food stamp program. Because
of the economic crisis of the past few years, the number of people in poverty and receiving food stamps has grown from about 26 million
in 2007 to 46.6 million in 2012. One in seven Americans needs that assistance
so they don’t go hungry. Costs have risen from $30 billion to $75 billion.
Conservative Republicans have
attacked the food stamp program for years. The budget that
Paul Ryan proposed in 2012 as he ran for Vice President would have cut food
stamps by about 20% for the next 10 years. This year he proposed
that people with $2,000 in savings, or a car worth more than $5,000, be
ineligible for food stamps. The Congressional Budget Office said that would
eliminate nearly 2 million people, mostly low-income seniors and working
families with children.
In June, House Republicans
passed an amendment
which would encourage states to drug test food stamp recipients. Although the
SNAP program already has a normal requirement that recipients must look for and
take jobs, an amendment
from Steve Southerland (R-FL) would allow states to cut people from SNAP
benefits if they are not now working 20 hours a week. Then state governments
could keep half of the money saved and use it for any purpose. Every Republican
but 6 voted for the Southerland amendment and every Democrat but one voted against it.
Republicans who don’t want to
cut food stamps enough are targeted by conservative activists. In May, the
Heritage Action Fund took out radio ads
against three Republican members of the House for supporting a “food stamp
bill”.
Which Americans receive food
stamps? In 2011, of the 20.8 million households receiving food stamps, less than a third had any
earned income. One-quarter of these households consisted of an elderly or a
disabled person living alone, virtually all of whom had no earned income.
One-sixth are unemployed single people living alone. The rest are mainly
households with children, most of whom are headed by a single parent, and 13%
of whom have no adult at all. That last group totals 1.3 million households of
only children, about 2.6 million children. The average gross income per
household is less than $9000 a year. Their total assets average $331.
What do they get? The average
SNAP benefit is about $134 per month per person, a bit over $4 per day for
food. That’s not enough
to last a month: 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the
month.
The proponents of cutting
food stamps argue that every program must be cut to deal with our national
debt. But the House farm bill
actually increases certain subsidies, to sugar for example, and cuts farm
subsidies overall less than the bill that passed the Senate or than President
Obama’s 2014 budget proposal. The vast majority
of farm subsidies, averaging about $17 billion per year since 1995, are paid to
huge farm operations and wealthy farmers: half of that money went to 4% of
farmers at $820,000 per recipient; at the other end, 80% of recipients averaged
only $9000, about 11% of the total.
For that reason, it has been
criticized by conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, which says that farm subsidy programs “transfer tax
payer dollars mainly to rich landowners and wealthy farmers”.
What about “government
waste”? SNAP program
administrative costs are only 5% of the total program, and fraudulent selling
of benefits is estimated to be 1%. Only 4% of recipients are non-citizens,
mostly documented immigrants and refugees.
Feeding America, whose
nationwide network of food banks works to alleviate hunger, says “Our nation’s
budget is a moral document.” Congressional Republicans say that reducing the
national debt will save future generations from financial disaster. To do that,
they are taking food off the table for today’s children. What kind of morality
is that?
Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
Published in the Jacksonville
Journal-Courier, July 16, 2013
In the end, the food stamp program also reduces crime; if it were eliminated I presume we would have millions more petty and not-so-petty acts of shoplifting by hungry people resembling something out of 'Les Miserables.' Add in the cost to taxpayers of the officers called for such crimes, the enforcement, etc and you probably have a wash; after all, the vast majority of that food stamp money goes to American farmers, American grocery stores and puts a lot of people to work including truckers and store clerks. It probably jumpstarts the economy in many ways that bailing out Wall Street never did.
ReplyDeleteHow many hours of operating an aircraft carrier would it take to cover the entire food stamp budget? I've heard the estimate that every soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan is costing 1 million dollars a year and that's not including veteran's benefits, either.
Priorities, people. Priorities.