Let's Talk About Food Stamps

First off it's not called the food stamp program as it's commonly referred to. It's the "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program".. SNAP for short.


In 2012 the federal government spent $78.4 billion. A big increase ever since 2009 when it became part of the economic stimulus package. As of November 1st, 2013 the stimulus has now ended which will result in rolling back to the spending levels we did 4 years ago. Which is $5b less over the next year. 47 million people will be affected. The big deal is, over 7 million more people were added to the program since 2009. So we now have millions more on the program then we did in 2009 but are spending the same as we previously spent when there 7 million less of them. This results in taking a larger bite out of the individual payments then had not all these people been added since then

In Pennsylvania on average a family of four will receive about $36 less then the $668 they previously received. A couple will lose about $20 from the $367 they received before November 1st, 2013. A single person about $11 then the $200 they received prior to stimulus. Although mileage may vary, it's a close approximation.

We've all heard from somebody else about someone using SNAP to buy steak or lobster. While it is true SNAP allows that, my question is... have any of you reading this actually witnessed that for yourself? I have not. I'm not saying it never happened, but have you, yourself actually witnessed this for yourself?

Others claimed that some stores would illegally ring up spirits, tobacco or pet foods. I can't say with certainty it ever happened, but you yourself ever see that first hand either? If so did you report it? I tend to think a lot of this more urban rumor then based in reality.

Let's dig into the costs. The Republican controlled House has voted on cutting and additional $40b over 10 years. It's not expected to pass in the Senate (surprised?). At least for now let's assume $73.4b will be spent over the next year. That works out to about $233 a year for each citizen (U.S. population is just over 315m). Not everyone pays taxes however. A popular number to use for the actual number of tax payers is about half of our population. If we accept that number, then the median taxpayer is paying in about $466 apiece to SNAP. (NOTE: Not all taxpayers are individuals. Some are businesses etc.)

Here's my criticism with the Republican plan. That will save taxpayers only about $25 apiece each year for a total of $250 by the end of 10 years. It also cuts SNAP payments by almost 30% for those on it 10 years from now when you factor in inflation of about a 1.5% a year.

Now if you're in favor of killing SNAP that's a pretty good deal. On the other hand most of the folks using SNAP aren't just sitting on their asses. Some 5,000 active duty military service members and many hundreds more of disabled vets are expected to spend around $100 million of their SNAP payments at base commissaries this year. Over 30% consists of the 'working poor'. Another 11 million are unemployed (SNAP allows the unemployed to collect for only 3 months- every 3 years). These alone accounts for about 30 million out of the 47 million currently in the program.


BIGGER FISH TO FRY
Each year the United States let's $1 trillion slip through their fingers in the form of corporate 'tax expenditure' loopholes. $450b that the IRS fails to collect. Another $2 trillion goes out the window via corporate foreign-income tax “deferrals” (holding of taxable income outside the country).

Just yesterday the $13b 'USS Gerald R. Ford' aircraft carrier was launched with three more carriers in the pipeline costing an additional $43 billion. It is estimated to cost about $6.5 million a day to operate the entire strike group that runs alongside this carrier with the 6,700 salaries and fuel for the planes, etc. figured in.


THE FIX
By raising the minimum wage a good chunk of the 14 million working poor (30%) would become ineligible for food stamps. Just closing less then 10% of the corporate loopholes would pay for the program in it's entirety with $21 billion left over. If the IRS could step up collections for the money it's owed by 18% it could cover SNAP with almost $3 billion to spare.


COMMENTARY
It seems to me the problem isn't SNAP. Instead, for these politicians, it 's taking the least path of resistance. The poor can't defend themselves against huge corporations who are enjoying their tax breaks via lobbying members of congress and through their huge campaign contributions. It's much the same story with increasing the minimum wage which would result in closing in on the ever widening income disparities.

Nay it's a hellva' lot easier to snow the electorate into believing it's the shiftless poor on SNAP who are sucking up all their tax dollars. It's along the same lines of rationale for reducing Social Security. The reason Washington is getting away with this propaganda is old folks and the poor can't go on a labor strike, contribute enormous amounts of money to politicians' campaigns or advertising against the cuts.

Like my old boss used to say, "shit rolls downhill".


Kind of explains the metonym for a part of Washington D.C. known as "Capitol Hill"' doesn't it?







Sources:
-The New York Times: "Cut in Food Stamps Forces Hard Choices on Poor"
-Pa. Dept. Of Public Welfare: "SNAP benefits will be decreasing"
-USDA Food & Nutrition Service: "Eligible Food Items"
-Huffington Post: "Military Families Redeem $100 Million A Year In SNAP Benefits "
-SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
-Six Myths About Food Stamps
-America Christens $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier
-Gerald Ford Class Carrier- $7m a day