Bill Knight column for Thurs.,
Fri. or Sat., May 24, 25 or 26, 2018
“Any additional influx of people in need because of
the lack of food stamps will only exacerbate an already difficult job,” said Jeanette
Wennemacher of the Peoria Area Food Bank. “We struggle year after year to keep
up with demand as it is, including securing funding to keep the operation
running, the lights on, heating and cooling, equipment and vehicle maintenance,
etc.”
And though a bill with the changes failed 198-213 in
Congress last Friday, supporters of new restrictions say it could be considered
again this week. The conservative House Freedom Caucus withheld support until a
vote on their controversial immigration bill.
The House Agriculture Committee last month passed the
food-stamp changes as part of H.R. 2, the $867 billion Agriculture and
Nutrition Act of 2018 (the Farm Bill) by a vote of 26-20, with all Republicans
supporting it and all Democrats opposing it.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported
that over the next decade, the proposed change shifting some funds from food aid
to workforce training would cut $20 billion from food stamps – now called the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The measure would raise from 49 to 59 the age that
adults would be required to work or participate in a training program for 20
hours a week. The bill also adds work requirements for parents of children 6
and older. Recipients who don’t comply would lose about $1,800 annually by
2028, CBO says.
More
than 500,000 Illinoisans may be affected, according to liberal and conservative
think tanks, particularly such rural areas.
Supporters say the requirements are needed to move
food-stamp recipients into jobs; Democrats oppose the tougher mandates because
benefits will be reduced.
“SNAP is the sole food source for 8.5 million American
families,” reported a new study from the Urban Institute, a non-partisan think
tank. “Roughly 41 million people in America are considered ‘food insecure’
because they lack reliable access to affordable, nutritious food.”
The program started in the 1960s and had restrictions
added during Republican Ronald Reagan’s and Democrat Bill Clinton’s
administrations. For decades, the food-stamp program was seen as a win-win
program since they bring money into the economy.
USDA’s Economic Research Service reported, “Not only
do SNAP benefits support a household’s food purchasing needs, benefits also
augment the incomes and spending of others (such as farmers, retailers, food
processors, and food distributors, as well as their employees); this, in turn,
has ripple effects for other parties. ERS research has estimated a multiplier
of SNAP benefits on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 1.79, that is, an increase
of $1 billion in SNAP benefits increases GDP by $1.79 billion and results in an
increase of 8,900-17,900 full-time equivalent jobs.”
U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, an Illinois Republican on the
Agriculture Committee, said, “Why would anyone be opposed to investing in
employment and training to get people into jobs? Our goal should not be to have
people (receiving public assistance) in perpetuity.”
Opponents such as AARP and Democrats see dangers.
Many SNAP recipients already work, advocates say, and
work requirements can be difficult for food-stamp users, who often resort to
low-paying jobs with shifting schedules and no benefits. Others have obstacles
to work, from child-care or caretaker responsibilities or a lack of in-demand
skills to physical or mental conditions.
As a government program, SNAP has been successful,
with little fraud or waste, according to a USDA report in 2013, and a 2016 report
from Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project reported, “SNAP improves health
outcomes and households’ financial well-being, and even improves the later-life
outcomes of individuals who had access to the program as children.”
Doesn’t that matter to Congress?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.