In Defense of Food Stamps

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

A successful poverty program is being unfairly criticized. Here are the facts:

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.

cont.

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

[Scuba]

1. Yeah, but food stamps are sucking the life out of our economy, right?

Um, no.

[okaawhatever]

2. I'm glad to see that in the Wall St. Journal. Americans need info and data to make informed

decisions regarding support of these programs. The right wing media makes sure that is covered up or distorted. In addition to those numbers, 900,000 food stamp recipients are veterans and the majority of those who can work, do. I believe that number was last at 83%.
I wish he would have addressed the obvious point of: If the minimum wage were adjusted for inflation, estimates say it would be about $10.65 per hour, would the number of working folks qualifying for foodstamps return to levels similar to those seen in the past. Since we still have high unemployment and underemployment that will be a factor, but I suspect that is where the answer lies.

[gelsdorf]

3. Food stamps are cash in the registers

of Wal Mart, Target, Kroger, HEB, SuperValu etc. Those stores sell Kellogg s, General Mills, Pepsi, Coke, Nestle etc. ALL are losers in these cuts. Not to mention lost jobs as sales decrease, lost utilities, store closings, transportation, fixtures, the list goes on (40 years in the grocery business here). Leave it to the GOTP to cut off there nose to spite their face. The bottom line is all money spends green, be it food stamps or cash.