New rule to exclude thousands from food aid

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.”