SNAP Out Of It

Recommended listening, "Snap Out Of It,” by the Artic Monkeys:

Mitt Romney claimed in 2007 that, “47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what" because they are "dependent upon government...believe that they are victims... believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.” By ‘dependent’ he probably meant welfare of some sort. Romney was “fact-checked” to the moon by media outlets and think tanks alike for “exaggerating” the data, with many articles and blogs honing in on the income tax claim. The speech ended up being a major public relations issue for his campaign.

Looking back at the coverage of that speech, it seems like Americans, and especially political commentators, were shocked by the breadth of our welfare programs. Maybe because acknowledging the widespread government assistance means that the economy isn’t as healthy as we would like it to be.’

There are varying philosophies of governance and welfare. Some think that the goal of welfare should be to improve quality of life by providing essential support and food, others think that welfare should be more of a “carrot” to lead people to make better financial and lifestyle decisions. This difference in philosophy shows up in the structure and limitations of certain programs.

WIC (Women, infants, children) recipients, for example, can only buy a limited group of goods from the grocery store, carroting them into abiding by government standards of healthy food choices. Work requirements for SNAP are similar, if you don’t work (stick), you don’t get aid (carrot).

SNAP work requirements were suspended during the pandemic, as Cato’s Chris Edwards points out:

“SNAP’s ABAWD [Able-bodied adults without dependents] rules had been suspended during the pandemic but come into force again this year. And even then, the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Corinth notes that numerous states have federal waivers that void some of the program’s work requirements.”

Now that we have fully emerged from the pandemic, Members of Congress are looking to tighten SNAP programs even more. Speaker McCarthy’s Limit, Save, Grow Actproposes returning discretionary spending to FY2022 levels in exchange for raising the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion. Also included in the plan is expanded work requirementsfor SNAP recipients who do not have children. 

In a blog for National Review, Veronique de Rugy concluded that: 

“…putting cash in people’s pockets and reducing food insecurity are important. But it matters how you do that. And should the government be involved, we shouldn’t ignore the potential tradeoffs of such policies. The changes in food-stamp eligibility combined with other relief programs that were expanded during the pandemic could reduce the incentives to work for most of the non-elderly population. The changes could also reduce income mobility, with all the known consequences for children. Increased employment among low-income parents, for instance, has driven much of the long-term declines in child poverty.”

SNAP and other welfare programs were created to provide aid for those who need it – a worthy goal . But these programs must also pursue  long-term financial stability, health and independence. To aim for less is a disservice to the taxpayer footing the bill and those experiencing financial hardship. 

https://farmingabundance.substack.com/p/snap-out-of-it