I open up a Washington Post news story on a web browser to read about a woman in Washington, D.C. who supports her family on food stamps, recently cut in an effort to stop a “pattern of dependence”. She shares her struggle and stories of her years of struggle, which include homelessness, transitional housing and rent subsidies. Her daughter, Tiara, who is 22, is quoted:
"I bet it was better in the days of Martin Luther King, for real," Tiara said. "At least back then people were angry. They were doing something. How do they expect us to live? We got no jobs, no opportunities, and now they're cutting our benefits? What's Obama doing, for real? How can you be a good president when half of your own city is like this? Yo, Mr. President! We're here, right under your nose, living, struggling, going nowhere." (Saslow, 2013)
This mother and daughter are like millions of Americans who are currently depending on food stamps and other government aid programs in order to survive. Journalist Eli Saslow illustrates the monthly decisions of a young family of four living on benefits that he encountered north of Washington, D.C., in Woonsocket, Rhode Island:
“Was it better to eat the string cheese now or to save it? To buy milk for $3.80 nearby or for $3.10 across town? Was it better to pay down the $600 they owed to the landlord, or the $110 they owed for their cellphones, or the $75 they owed to the tattoo parlor, or the $840 they owed the electric company?” (Saslow, 2013)
The stability of these families is at the whim of decisions being made by their elected officials who debate over how much aid – and for how long - America will offer its struggling citizens. While the debate grows more heated and arguments are posed both in support of and in opposition to long term aid programs the core question remains: Can we afford not to help our citizens? Beyond individual daily help, some profess that the funds given to those that would otherwise not have the money to spend stimulate the economy. Others say that abuse is rampant and the system needs to be cut to encourage people to find jobs and get off the program. The conversation circles around controversial decisions: Who deserves help? What help is available? What is the right approach to managing the recipient requirements and the distributed money?
Those that take the stance that programs should be cut often use the “bootstrap” theory. The bootstrap theory says that people should “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps” and work hard to achieve whatever they can achieve. It presupposes that the main factor leading a person to receive benefits is a lack of willingness to work and what they need is a little less help, and in turn, a little more incentive to get out and find a job. Essentially, they argue that America’s support system for the poor and struggling should be set up like a dangling carrot or a prodding stick meant to encourage or direct employment and self sufficiency. Another factor in the bootstrap-based solution is to make the requirements to receive aid more strict so the entry level of access is more difficult. This would indeed create less dependence on federal funds by weeding out those that do not fit the criteria according to the strict parameters set, but it does not attend to any of the larger, more complex issues plaguing society. These measures are short-sighted answers to symptoms instead of well-directed solutions to root causes. These stricter requirements could also potentially kick people out of the system that do not meet the requirements, whether at their own fault or for lack of access to those requirements. For example, a requirement to attend job training could be unattainable because of the lack of job training services in the area of the recipient. In this case, a person needing aid would not receive aid because they did not meet a requirement that was not even available to them. These suggestions for cutting the amount of spending that the federal government has allotted to aid programs are built on the false premises that people do not want to work, are intent on taking advantage of the system, and that lack of eligibility would be purely a factor of lack of effort. These proposed solutions put bottom line above the welfare of people and our nation. Their basis is often inconsistent with the actual stories of need in our country focusing on outliers and worst case scenarios. This is no way to make sweeping decisions that will affect millions. The bootstrap theory is what is at work as Republicans argue for sharp cuts and decreases in spending that coincide with stricter requirements for recipients to meet and often do not take in to consideration lack of access, personal work ethic, or situations out of the immediate control of the person applying for benefits.
In order to fully highlight these misrepresentations of benefits we need only to look towards the biases in the news. Recently, conservative news outlets have taken to scrutinizing the benefit program and magnifying flaws in the system. On the television specials of highly visible, admittedly conservative leaning networks, newscasters call the people that receive food-stamp benefits, “abusers,” “moochers,” “parasites,” “sucking off the nipple of the government,” “freeloaders,” who are, “draining the system” and part of a, “culture of dependency,” and they proclaim that these traits apply to millions of Americans in the system and often highlight spending that they feel is out of line with what should be acceptable to those receiving federal money. This assessment of the overall moral character of people in need is far from the actual nature of the need and desperately off base. As Jon Stewart surmises, with this view of the poor these conservatives, “Tie people’s poverty to their own lack of virtue,” insinuating that a person’s abilities to prepare for, find, land, and maintain a job that covers their personal finances are free from any other factors like access to training, availability in the local market, and stability of employers and is only a direct result of their own lack of moral character and errant being. (The Daily Show, 2014) Do we really live in a society that directly links earning potential to intrinsic value? Would anyone want their character defined only by their pocketbooks or their spending scrutinized in the public forum in order to determine if we are in our place in society?
The main programming focus of these sensational television specials, and one of the main programs that is in the debate for American welfare, is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), SNAP is a nutrition assistance program for low-income individuals and families. It is called a “domestic hunger safety net” by the USDA. (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014). Currently, 47 million Americans use the SNAP safety net benefit of food stamps. That is a full one sixth of our country. This number is almost double the 2006 mark of approximately 25 million and is the highest number in two decades. (Plumer, 2013) Refraining from the argument that if one sixth of our nation are moochers we have a larger moral problem than federal aid benefit cuts can fix - the current need is in direct proportion to America’s available job market and that means that the reason so many people are using the program is because they actually need it and indicates that the program is serving its purpose to help hedge in those that are struggling in our complex, and currently weak, economically driven society.
Keeping in mind the economic pattern of the last 10 years, studies show that decreases in benefit recipients often lag a few years behind economic upturn, which would statistically point to the United States’ unemployment rate being right where we should expect it to be in response to slow economic increases, and, therefore, the need of millions of Americans to have access to SNAP benefits to be right where we would expect it to be. However, that economically proven lag time is too slow for some Republicans who have proposed measures that will force 3.8 million people out of the SNAP program within the coming year - mainly the result of the stricter requirements meant to incentivize work and disincentivize reliance on aid. (Plumer, 2013)(Congressional Budget Office, 2012) Their magnifying glass is focused on how much money is spent subsidizing and providing benefits to those that, for various reasons, are unable to fully financially support themselves and they argue that benefits provide a crutch for people who are able to work but are not looking for work. But it’s not that easy. As the numbers and projections mentioned above accurately project, the current number of people receiving benefits speaks to a continuing weak economy where even those that want to work cannot find adequate employment to support themselves or their families. A closer look at the situation reveals that there is a lack of opportunity for people who are seeking the skills and training needed to succeed in the workplace. Those that are using SNAP benefits are not doing so merely because it is easier than work. They are doing so because they cannot find work or access the training programs necessary to obtain gainful employment that would catapult them off the program. This indicator leads me to believe that cuts and changes to the aid program are far less necessary and more ineffective than attention given to growing a stable economy would be. If we are answering the question, “Why are so many people requiring benefits?” with, “Let’s change the program so less people get benefits,” we are missing the point.
In addition to the argument that the people receiving SNAP benefits do not have enough personal incentive to work, the sensational argument over the “rampant fraud” of the program is undermining the real value of the intentional and appropriate safety net that has been established. Opponents of the program cite a report commissioned by the USDA that shows a current estimate of $858 million dollars has been “trafficked” – or improperly used – during the period of 2009-2011. This number is used as an indicator of extreme abuse and a need to revamp the system that is in place. However, what is not stated in this argument is that the $858 million is a mere 1.3% of the total benefit of the same period, one of the lowest percentages of trafficking in the last 20 years. Additionally, the USDA commissioned report states that “Food retailers . . . are the primary agents that can redeem SNAP benefits . . . and therefore are the primary loci of trafficking,” not individuals who are the main target of reformed programs and proposed restriction laws. Over 10% of approved retailers were involved in diverting funds away from their intended purpose from 2009-2011. (Mantovani, Williams, & Pflieger, 2013, p. 1) It must be noted that, while trafficked benefits have increased over time, the increase, “Is a reflection of the overall growth of the total SNAP redemptions in the past few years,” and that, “The proportion of redemptions trafficked was still relatively small . . . 1.3 percent in 2009-2011”. In no way is the $858 million an indicator of rampant fraud and abuse within the system. (Mantovani, Williams, & Pflieger, 2013)
Those that support the aid theory, on the other side of the argument, state that people sometimes need a helping hand and, as a society, we should be there to give it them. Not only are the benefits helpful for individuals and small families, but the benefits can stimulate a fledgling economy, especially in areas hit the hardest by unemployment. It presupposes that there are times of hardship in life and situations that are not easily overcome where individuals, families and small local businesses need assistance. With the collapse of the economy in 2008, the United States has been looking at programs to help the poor, unemployed and hungry more closely in part because of the sharp increase in recipients, mentioned above, but it should be noted that the money given to those that are eligible for benefits is commonly routed directly into the local economy through grocery and utility purchases. Every one dollar increase in SNAP benefits spurs nearly $1.70 in local economies. In short, “[A] reduction in SNAP means that families will spend less in the community, with the loss being felt by local businesses,” states Grace Jones Westby of the Vernon County Broadcaster in Wisconsin. (Jones Westby, 2014) Take the community of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, where the family mentioned at the beginning resides. The small businesses in this community operate on a “boom-and-bust” cycle that is directly related to the receipt of SNAP benefits - $2 million dollars that arrives in resident’s bank accounts on the first of each month which. The receipt of these benefits is then filtered to local grocery stores, food companies, employees and banks. (Saslow, 2013) The assistance to eligible recipients of benefits and the local economic success is just the kind of stimulus that can improve overall economic stability and has been proven to spiral the economy upward. These benefits also keep millions of people out of poverty, literally. The poverty rate in America is at a generational high, but without programs it would be nearly double. The predicted rates are stated as thus: “The rate [of people living in poverty] currently stands at 15 percent . . . without programs . . . it would rise to nearly 30 percent.” (Waldron, 2014) With the proven benefit to local economies – even the hardest hit ones – and the figures regarding the overall economic well being of Americans, it is clear that this safety net is helping keep American together. The last thing we should be doing is looking at ways to cut the net or forcing people outside of it. If anything we should be looking at how to get people up off the net and onto steady employment and financial ground through long-term solutions and proven programs.
American society has a duty to provide avenues of possibility and opportunity to its citizens and continue to fund the programs that help the poorest citizens as well as those that have fallen on temporary hard times. Beyond helping the people that need it, which is beyond a good enough reason, the assistance provided stimulates, strengthens and fortifies the economy. These steps to support people are steps to support our society by giving value, health and opportunity to people and decreasing poverty rates. These are the programs that make America strong and proud even in economic distress and keep our families afloat during the unexpected. Both arguments - the bootstrap theory that claims a need to incentivize work ethic and the aid theory that is established to help in both the daily and the long-term economy of communities - claim that their way is the right way to build a strong society and both claim to be founded in economic principles and ethics. However, the arguments for the need of incentives are based on small percentages of fraud and limited individuals who are taking advantage of a proven system. The majority of data shows that we should continue to provide benefits for the sake of individuals, families and communities.
Bibliography
Congressional Budget Office. (2012). The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Congressional Budget Office.
Jones Westby, G. E. (2014, March 26). Cut in SNAP benefits hurts the hungry, economy. Vernon County Broadcaster.
Mantovani, R., Williams, E., & Pflieger, J. (2013). The Extent of Trafficking in the Supllemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 2009-2011. Fairfax: United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
Plumer, B. (2013, September 23). Why are 47 million Americans on food stamps? It's the recession - mostly. Washington Post.
Saslow, E. (2013, March 16). Food Stamps put Rhode Island town on monthly boom-and-bust cycle. The Washinton Post.
Saslow, E. (2013, December 15). Waiting for the 8th. The Washington Post.
The Daily Show. (2014, March 13). Entitlement Nation. New York, NY, USA.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2014, March 06). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Retrieved March 29, 2014, from USDA Food and Nutrician Service: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
Waldron, T. (2014, January 8). Just How Effective Are Government Programs at Reducing the Poverty Rate? Retrieved from Care2: http://www.care2.com/causes/just-how-effective-are-government-programs-at-reducing-the-poverty-rate.html
No comments:
Post a Comment