Bill Knight column for 12-26, 27 or 28, 2019
Weeks before Christmas, a new
federal rule was announced that sounds like it was written by Ebenezer Scrooge
before he saw the light.
On Dec. 4, the Trump administration
set April Fool’s Day as when the rule will take effect restricting eligibility
for abled-bodied adults without dependents to get Supplement Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps).
The USDA estimates that between
755,000 and 850,000 Americans will be dropped, according to
publichealthwatch.com. The average SNAP benefit is less than $5/day for a
single American.
The anti-hunger program’s work
requirements for those without kids started in 1996, but states could waive
them during economic uncertainties. Already, these people can receive SNAP
benefits for only 3 months during a 36-month period unless they’re working or
enrolled in an education or training program for 20 hours a week.
The new rule prohibits waivers
unless states have a 12-month jobless rate of 20%, or as little as 6% above the
U.S. average. This month’s jobless rate is 3.6%; 36 million Americans use food
stamps.
In 2018, the rule’s legislative
version was defeated by bipartisan votes in the House and Senate (83-330 and
30-68, respectively).
"SNAP provides families with
their basic nutritional needs to get them through temporary hard time”
according to Feeding America. “It helps people get back on their feet and on
the road to a better life."
Anti-hunger groups were critical of
the changes.
“This action flies in the face of
congressional intent,” said James Weill, president of Food Research &
Action Center. “If the rule is implemented, the nation would see higher rates
of hunger and poverty.”
The rule will “cause serious harm
to individuals, communities, and the nation while doing nothing to improve the
health and employment of those impacted by the rule,” he continued. “In
addition, the rule would harm the economy, grocery retailers, agricultural
producers, and communities by reducing the amount of SNAP dollars available to
spur local economic activity.”
Faith groups echo such concerns.
“These changes seek to deny the
basic level of support necessary for people to have adequate access to
nutritious food,” said the Presbyterian Church (USA). “Members of Congress
rightly saw that these changes to the SNAP program were punitive and contrary
to the aims of the program.”
The Chicago Sun-Times editorialized
that the new rule implies SNAP freeloaders are rampant, but “the administration
has produced no evidence.”
U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio),
chair of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight and
Department Operations, said the USDA failed to prepare for the change.
“If it had, they would’ve found
many recipients are either attempting to find work or face hardships that
prevent them from doing so,” she wrote. “Instead, it demonized them as lazy and
undeserving.”
Lisa Pruitt, a law professor at the
University of California-Davis, said the changes will hit rural residents
harder than the rest of the country.
“Work requirements are
disproportionally harmful in rural communities because of a dearth of public
transportation, lack of access to child care where needed, and very few
available jobs,” she said.
Further, work requirements “often
fail to achieve their goals of promoting self-sufficiency and in fact worsen
the plight of those already suffering the ill-effects of poverty and food
insecurity.”
The Presbyterians added, “In one of
the wealthiest nations in the world, any governmental action that hinders a
person’s ability to access nutritious food is unacceptable [and our church]
does not support this attempt to further marginalize people already struggling
to put food on their tables.”