The Food Stamp Act of 1964 was signed into law 50 years ago, launching a food assistance program that has been a lifeline for millions of hungry Americans. Five decades later, our political leaders - national, state, and local - need to acknowledge the enduring value of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP--the modern incarnation of food stamps), stop making false arguments to justify gutting it, and focus on improving America's most effective tool in the fight against hunger.
Because hunger is an ongoing problem in America, our nation has steadfastly supported a federal nutrition assistance program that feeds hungry families as it boosts local economies. Though some politicians disingenuously argue otherwise, it still does both of those things very well.
SNAP reduces food insecurity and, in 2012 alone, lifted more than 4 million Americans out of poverty. More than half of those individuals--2.1 million--were children, who are potentially the most devastated by hunger due to increased risk of poor health, hospitalizations, developmental delays, behavioral problems and low academic achievement. Of course, food insecurity causes harm at every age, and SNAP is effective as well for millions of seniors and working-age adults in blunting the harshest impacts of hunger and poverty.
In terms of economic benefits, SNAP creates markets, and spurs economic growth and jobs in both rural and urban communities, at grocers, farmers' markets, military commissaries, manufacturers and farms. In addition, because SNAP beneficiaries spend 97 percent of their allotments in the month they are issued, the economy as a whole benefits. Research conducted by Moody's Analytics and USDA estimate that there is between $1.73 to $1.79 in economic growth per $1 of SNAP benefits.
With so many proven advantages--not to mention a historically recognized moral and bipartisan responsibility to care for our nation's most vulnerable citizens--why do so many leaders attempt to justify cutting the program, or trot out tired reform proposals we know won't work?
For example, the recent Farm Bill cut SNAP benefits and access to the program in several ways, hurting low-income, hungry people as well as our economy.
Most recently, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan doubled-down on a warmed over bad idea when he proposed to take 11 safety net programs, including SNAP, and convert them into a single block grant for states, with few minimum standards other than the kinds of harsh conditions for beneficiaries that Rep. Ryan favors.
Ironically, the weaknesses of programs converted into block grants--how they lose support over time as their goals are watered down, funds are diverted to more politically powerful constituents, and the grant become less effective and more vulnerable to attack--are highlighted by Rep. Ryan's companion proposal. He would expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to childless workers--a good step--but pay for it by eliminating the Title XX Social Services Block Grant, as well as other low-income programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for children and the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.
Such proposals are a waste of policymakers' time and focus. Our nation would be much better served by implementing thoughtful solutions to hunger that focus on expanding opportunity and reducing poverty, rather than weakening programs that support working and unemployed adults, children and seniors.
First and foremost, we need to improve economic outcomes for families in the workforce through better wages, benefits, and supports like the EITC and the refundable Child Tax Credit. We need to strengthen child nutrition programs so children have access to food both in and out of school. We also need to improve SNAP so people have more resources to purchase a healthy diet. The current, woefully inadequate monthly allotments are based on the outmoded Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), a descendant of a diet developed for emergency use in the 1930s.
A recent Institute of Medicine report found that SNAP benefits are not enough for most beneficiary households--and don't do enough for food security and food purchasing power. Other research--including USDA's own analysis of a recent (temporary and now eliminated) benefit increase provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--has shown the powerful effect of a healthier allotment.
Fifty years after our nation's legislators took on the fight against hunger, today's leaders need to put politics aside. It's time to acknowledge SNAP's necessity and value; correct its shortcomings and build on its strengths; and celebrate its historic contribution to the well-being of America and its people.