STILL STIGMATIZING SNAP
The Federal debt limit—also known as the debt ceiling— is the maximum amount of debt that the Department of Treasury can issue to the public or other federal agencies. More colloquially, it’s the statutory limit on the amount of money Uncle Sam can borrow to ensure that the government can meet all of its agreed upon obligations. Set by law, that limit can be suspended or raised to guarantee that the Federal government doesn’t come up short, so to speak, and unable to meet its commitments.
The current debt ceiling, by the way, is $31.4 trillion —and it was bumped up against on January 19th, 2023. Since then, the Treasury has managed to meet all obligations without breaking through the ceiling by taking what they call “extraordinary measures” which are essentially accounting tricks or maneuvers. But those maneuvers can only hold back the waters temporarily. In fact, Treasury Secretary Janel Yellen estimates that the jig will be up around June 1, 2023, and unless the ceiling is suspended or raised by then, Uncle Sam will officially be in default.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy, as you undoubtedly know, has managed to put together a GOP proposal that’ll will increase the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion or through March 2024, whichever comes first.
Currently, if you’re what they call an “able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD)” and you’re between the ages of 18-49, and can’t secure an exemption, then you’re only eligible for SNAP—formerly known as food stamps— if you’re working, enrolled in training program, or volunteering for at least 80 hours per month. Otherwise, your participation in the SNAP program is limited to no more than 3 months in a three year period.
What McCarthy and his crew wants to do is to beef up the work requirements for ABAWDs by jacking the age limit from 18-49 to 18-55.
Again, if you fail to meet the requirements, then any SNAP benefits you receive will get snatched.
In effect, Speaker McCarthy’s bill, known as the “Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023,” seizes upon the drama surrounding the debt to curtail a program that seeks, however modestly, to mitigate the food insecurity that so often accompanies economic marginality.
More broadly, the tightening of work requirements for social assistance is part of a larger effort to build momentum for a politics of economic austerity.
QUICK PROFILE OF SNAP PARTICIPANTS
During an average month, there’s close to 40 million people—spread out over about 20 million households— who participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Here’s some of what you find in a recent report by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service:
8 out of every ten SNAP households—a whopping 80%— include a child younger than age 18, an older individual at least sixty years old, or a person with a disability.
The typical or average SNAP household receives a paltry $230 per month. That amounts to about $7.67 per day.
The average household that receives food stamps consists of about 2 people, with over half of those households containing only one person.
Prior to the pandemic, 81% of households receiving SNAP benefits were eking out a living at or below the official poverty line.
Most SNAP recipients are White: Large numbers of Americans tend to assume that non-Whites—and especially Blacks— are the primary beneficiaries of social assistance programs, including food stamps. This is more fiction than fact. Almost four out of every ten —37.9%— Snap recipients is White. The comparable figures for Blacks and Hispanics are 25% and 15%, respectively.
When combined with income from other sources, SNAP benefits lifted 9% of households recieving food stamps above the official poverty line.
These data ought to make it clear that ain’t nobody making a killing on food stamps. The average household is not stacking up $7.67 and chowing down on lobster dinners at the public’s expense and, furthermore, most households receiving food stamps are White, not Black (although relative to our share in the population, we’re disproportionately represented amongst households and persons receiving food stamps. Given the long history of racial exploitation and discrimination, though, this disproportionate representation is hardly surprising).
These are households that are struggling financially to make a “go” out of it and seeking to live a life consistent with a robust understanding of human dignity.
And that’s not all: There’s plenty of evidence that dismantles the argument that households receiving SNAP benefits consist primarily of persons who refuse to work. They are not the “couch potatoes” who, according to people like Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, need to be forced out of the crib, grab one of the many jobs supposedly awaiting them, and contribute to economic growth.
Study after study documents that SNAP households are NOT a haven of " “couch potatoes.”
One study, conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, found that:
In a typical month, 54% of individuals receiving SNAP benefits were employed; 75% worked in the year before or the year after the month in which they were surveyed.
75% of households with children worked during a typical month; almost 90% of such households worked in the year before or the year after the survey month (in the 25-month period).
These, and related findings, lead the authors of the study to conclude: “Most SNAP recipients who can work do so.”
Similar findings are reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the Bureau:
More than 3/4 of households receiving SNAP had at least one person working
One-third of SNAP households had two or more workers
84% of married-couple households receiving food stamps had at least one person working
And:
76% of “SNAP families with no spouse present” reported at least one person working.
Finally, a Brookings study examined, among other things, the extent of non-labor force participation amongst SNAP participants, and the reasons given for their failure to work or seek work within the past year. They found that roughly 65% cited health or a “disability” as the reason for their labor force non-participation.
CONCLUSION
What’s more, there is a serious paucity of evidence —and that’s putting it lightly—indicating that forced work requirements actually, well, work. The literature is replete with studies indicating that such requirements are far better at kicking people off the rolls than in helping them secure jobs with livable wages and benefits (see here, here, here, or here).
What we’re likely to get—and this bears repeating— is an increase in the number of people kicked off of SNAP, an uptick in the number of folk suffering from food insecurity and, perhaps, a jump in homelessness and illnesses as more people find themselves in the unenviable position of having to divert what little funds they have away from paying bills in order to purchase food.
Although it’s highly unlikely that McCarthy’s bill will get past the Senate, the very fact that something like this is being proposed bears witness to how hatred of the poor remains a vital and dangerous force in the body politic.
It’s part of a long history of stigmatizing and demonizing poor people.
And:
It must be defeated.
Commentaires