During the financial crisis and “Great Recession”, the number of individuals enrolled in the food stamp program AKA SNAP (“Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”) skyrocketed to the largest in history. By design a counter-cyclical program, as such it makes some macroeconomic sense. Proponents of the program point to improved health and reduced food insecurity for benefit recipients. Don’t look for the editors of the Wall Street Journal among them:
Judging by the rhetoric, you’d think President Trump was shutting down Great Depression bread lines. “The Trump administration,†Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “is driving the vulnerable into hunger just as the Christmas season approaches.â€
Humbug. Two incongruous facts: With the U.S. unemployment rate now at 50-year lows, there are seven million job openings for only six million job seekers. Yet as of last year 2.1 million potential hires—specifically, adults age 18 to 49, able-bodied, without dependents—were receiving food stamps despite not working.
One reason is that basic work requirements have been waived into oblivion. The 1996 welfare reform said that childless adults generally had to work or train at least 20 hours a week to qualify for food stamps. Otherwise, they’re supposed to be restricted to three months of benefits in a three-year period.
States can get this requirement waived, however, for areas that are economically struggling. This is defined as 10% unemployment, with some catchall language for places otherwise lacking sufficient jobs. Flimsy standards have prevailed. The Foundation for Government Accountability calculated in August that the average jobless rate in waived areas—more than 1,100 jurisdictions across 33 states—was 4.5%. “Nearly half,†the report said, “have unemployment rates at or below four percent.â€
This makes the timing right to retighten the criteria.
I’m of mixed mind on this. On the one hand, tens of millions of people on SNAP more than was the case in 2007 after a decade of economic expansion is, to say the least, odd. The total cost of the program is around $70 billion per year. The fraud and erroneous payments in the program are estimated to be between $1 billion and $3 billion per year. It is not serving a Keynesian purpose. The claim is that it discourages work.
On the other hand, $70 billion a year is a flyspeck in the federal budget and SNAP is an effective program as federal programs go.
Just how much should we subsidize able-bodied adults who just won’t work?
I am not so sure that it discourages work, but the rate at which is dropping seems awfully slow. While I would like to see some sort of analysis on why the numbers are so much higher than they were in 2007 (maybe those numbers were artifially low since the economy was in a bubble?) my inclination is to side with the Trump admin here.
Steve
I think I can explain that. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) modified SNAP in two ways: the benefit was increased and the eligibility rules were eased for childless adults. My recollection is that the benefit increase was rolled back a couple of years ago but the eligibility rules were not restored to what they had been.
Basically, people are taking advantage of programs for which they are presently eligible but would not have been in 2007. The question to be addressed is what is the purpose of the SNAP program and, by extension, other welfare programs?
just won’t work?
No such thing.
Every able bodied adult not working fits a category.
Suffers from anxiety.
Drug dependency.
Criminal record.
Single parent with two or more children.
No driver’s license.
Minority status.
Caregiver.
ADHD.
PTSD.
Nothing to wear.
Social anxiety disorder.
Car’s broke down.
No gas.
Overslept.
Chronic fatigue syndrome.
Overqualified.
Underqualified.
Clueless.
Drunk.
Hungover.
Won’t work? Can’t work.
Interesting list Gray.
I distinctly remember that 2009 time when they were pushing the food stamp program, especially on radio spot ads. It really perplexed me that the government seemed almost to be pleading with people to go on food stamps, with little emphasis being placed on need but rather such a program was very easy to access. Go figure!
I think Grey Shambler pretty much has it right. In the specific case of the black underclass, which is half the black population, the average IQ is in the 70’s, and they are incapable of working at anything but the most menial manual labor. There is precious little of that nowadays. The Great Society legislation was passed in a time of massive and numerous race riots, and one of its goals was peace in the cities. SNAP and the other Great Society programs are cheap enough for peace.
I think Grey’s list is pretty good as well.
In my own experience, there were several years there when my kids were young that I could have worked, would like to have worked, but the options available were not justifiable economically after accounting for childcare and the various other work-related costs.
I fit into about 75% of those categories at one time or another, and worked full time straight thru till 65. Those are all excuses for laziness.
IMO snap is welfare for the food giants ConAgra, ADM, Car-gill, Tyson, etc, and in the end just make people fat.
See:
https://www.kfornow.com/obese-soldiers-and-recruits/