Demand for
SNAP benefits won't retreat until the economic recovery stops benefitting only
the richest Americans
Would you believe that the nation’s
cabinet has approved an executive order defining food as a legal right? No, not
our nation.
India has
taken this bold step. Malnourishment afflicts 42 percent of Indian
children, and part of their government’s response to this entrenched problem is
defining efforts to end hunger as more than a welfare challenge.
Here in the United States, weave got
a hunger problem too. Yes, it’s not on India’s scale, but nearly 50 million Americans — 16 percent of us — live in
what experts call “food-insecure” households. The number of hungry Americans
has held steady since 2008, when the Great Recession began.
UNICEF rates child welfare among 29
of the world’s richest countries. We’re in 26th place —
ahead of Romania, yet behind Greece, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Clearly, we should do more to help the most vulnerable among us, right? Well, Congress doesn’t agree. So now the world’s largest economy will let more people go hungry while our lawmakers squabble over how deeply to cut food stamp spending.
Food stamp benefits for poor
families have already taken a hit. Even though hunger never declined from its
peak during our alleged economic recovery, a small benefit increase in the 2009
stimulus package expired on Halloween. The end of this $5 billion safety net
extension will trim $36
per month for a family of four enrolled in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program food stamp program, known as SNAP.
The Republican argument for cutting
food stamps is based on the program’s growth. The government spent around $80
billion on SNAP benefits in the past year, more than twice levels seen before
the Great Recession. That increase
followed the boost in the value of the food stamps people could
qualify for and the expansion of the number of people poor enough to qualify.
Simply put, we’re spending more on
food stamps because widespread economic problems increased the number of empty
larders in America. It’s possible that higher benefits compelled more people to
apply, but that’s beside the point.
Had the economic recovery been
widespread, we might be spending less on SNAP. Instead, the richest 1 percent
inhaled all economic growth and then some. In 2010 and 2011, the 1 percent snatched 121
percent of the recovery’s bounty. This mind-boggling statistic means
that the bottom 99 percent experienced a net decline in income.
Demand for food stamps won’t retreat
until the economic recovery reaches the rest of us. And food stamps are a
powerful economic stimulus because every dollar in increased SNAP benefits
generates about $1.70 in
economic activity.
So what’s Congress going to do? Pare
back benefits even more. The House has passed two different versions of a Farm
Bill, the SNAP program’s legislative home. One left food stamps out altogether
and the other slashed SNAP spending by $4 billion each year.
The Senate’s version would cut SNAP
outlays by $400 million per year. Either of these reductions would come on top
of the $5 billion decline in support for this meager lifeline that helps one in
seven Americans with less than $1.50 for every meal.
Can the private sector do something?
Well, sure.
Workers employed by many of our
largest corporations, such as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, are compensated so badly
that millions of
them qualify for government anti-poverty programs. If they’d just
pay a living wage, fewer Americans would turn to stamps, Medicaid, and other
safety-net options.
If seeing your tax dollars subsidize
giant corporations that refuse to pay their own workers enough to get food on
the table strikes you as unfair, this business trend may cheer you up:
Companies selling their wares to the poor are lowering their sales forecasts
due to the SNAP cuts. Including Wal-Mart.
Emily
Schwartz Greco is the managing editor of OtherWords,
a non-profit national editorial service run by the Institute for Policy
Studies. OtherWords columnist
William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of
Norwalk, Connecticut. OtherWords.org