Simply Politics & News

[pro_se]

WSJ: In Defense of Food Stamps

By William A. Galston Nov. 5, 2013 6:45 p.m. ET


We are entering a divisive debate on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), popularly known as food stamps. Unless facts drive the debate, it will be destructive as well. Here are the basic facts:

Food stamps reach their intended targets—poor and near-poor Americans. Over the past two decades, the program's overpayment rate has been cut by more than half to 3%, according to the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service. The large increase in the program's cost over the past decade mostly reflects worsening economic conditions rather than looser eligibility standards, increased benefits, or more waste, fraud and abuse. As the economy improves over the next decade, the number of beneficiaries will fall sharply.

About 47.6 million individuals receive food stamps; 47% are children, and an additional 26% are adults living with those children. Income for the typical family with children on food stamps stands at 57% of the poverty line—about $10,875 for three-person family. Although the share of households getting food stamps with incomes above the poverty line has risen to about 17% today from 12% in 2007, 91% of benefits in dollar terms go to households living in poverty.

The food-stamp program's costs have soared since 2000, and especially since 2007. Here's why:

First, there are many more poor people than there were at the end of the Clinton administration. Since 2000, the number of individuals in poverty has risen to 46.5 million from 31.6 million—to 15% of the total population from 11.3%. During the same period, the number of households with annual incomes under $25,000 rose to 30.2 million (24.7% of total households) from 21.9 million (21.2%).

Critics complain that beneficiaries and costs have continued to rise, even though the Great Recession officially ended in 2009. They're right, but the number of poor people and low-income households has continued to rise as well. According to the Census Bureau, there are 2.9 million more poor individuals today than in 2009, and three million more households with incomes under $25,000. The economic recovery, such as it is, has not yet reached low-income Americans.

In addition to an expanding pool of individuals and households eligible for food stamps, participation in the program has risen. Between 1994 and 2002, which included the broad-based economic expansion of the mid- and late 1990s, participation fell to 54% of eligible persons from 75%. Over the past decade, that downward trend was reversed, and participation once again stands at about 75%. Hard times have motivated people to sign up, and program administrators have intensified their outreach efforts, including advertising.

Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, macroeconomic trends account for 65% of the increased spending in the food stamp program. A combination of higher food prices and lower beneficiary incomes accounts for an additional 15%. The temporary increase in benefits included in the 2009 stimulus bill accounts for the remaining 20%, and that increase ended as of Nov. 1. Over the next decade, according to CBO economic projections, the number of food-stamp beneficiaries will fall by about 30%, to 34.3 million. Annual outlays will fall by $10 billion in current dollars, and much more when inflation is taken into account.

So what is the fight about? Congressional and other critics of the program complain that standards are lax and that only individuals at or below the poverty line should be eligible. Even if this argument were accepted, CBO calculates, outlays would fall by only 4%. Second, say the critics, too many individuals become eligible "categorically" through their participation in other programs rather than through income tests. This is another distinction that doesn't make much of a practical difference: Eliminating categorical eligibility outright would reduce the number of beneficiaries by only 4% and outlays by only 2%.

Third, say the critics, the number of able-bodied adults without dependents receiving benefits under the food-stamp program has risen to nearly 5.5 million from under two million since 2008 even as work requirements for these individuals have been relaxed. Here the critics have a case: The federal government should reconsider the waivers of current requirements it has extended to 44 states and the District of Columbia, and it should consider toughening those standards.

The final complaint is the broadest: Food stamps are welfare, and welfare increases dependency. But the most rigorous research (summarized in a 2011 NBER paper, "An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States") has found SNAP's effects on work effort to be "small," "statistically insignificant," or "zero."

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the current attacks on the food stamp program are motivated far more by budget-cutting zeal and anti-government ideology than by the defects of the program—and that the real disagreement is about the extent of our collective obligation to the least fortunate Americans.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303936904579177810523435416


HMMM... Once again it appears your tighty-righty propaganda amounts to nothing more than prejudicial bullshit. Might it be that your so-called 'anti-government ideology' is actually harming more Americans than it helps? ...Unless, of course, if such was the whole idea in the first place. You know...'piss 'em off enough & they'll rise up & do yer dirty work for ya'.

Never thought of that, huh? Yeah, RIGHT!