Nutrition Saves $$
If we all agree that everyone-getting-enough-to-eat is worth taxpayer dollars, what's the best way forward? As it is now, SNAP provides 48 million Americans with free food. And Republicans in congress want to reduce that number. They say recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people on what used to be called 'food stamps'--in 2000, the number was only 17 million.A recent blog post by the economist Paul Krugman shows that this increase is nearly all related to the declining fortunes of the poor. As the economy skewed in favor of the rich during the Bush years, and then collapsed, the increased use of SNAP benefits became a major part of society's safety net. While there was an additional expansion beyond this, it was due to a legislative change that saw government agencies seek out those eligible for assistance, ** rather than wait for the needy to discover they qualified.
** Making sure kids get enough to eat reduces the need for future spending many times over.
The case for reduced spending now, on the other hand, points to a small loophole that could be tightened, and to the need to tie benefits to work requirements for able-bodied and childless working-age adults.
A slight tightening of eligibility, to screen out those with ample assets but little income, might be a legitimate point for congressional give-and-take, but without a strong economy, work requirements are simply cruel.
Another Republican plan to fix SNAP, proposed by Tennessee congressman Phil Roe, an MD, would be to limit recipients to healthier foods, using guidelines devised for the WIC (women, infants and children) program. The thinking here is that healthier eating will reduce the need for spending on Medicaid, not to mention healthier lives led.
Under the Roe proposal, the list of excluded groceries under SNAP (alcohol, tobacco, pet food and other non-food items) would be expanded so that only the healthiest basics are covered: juice, milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruits, veggies, whole wheat bread, grains, tortillas, canned fish, legumes, soy products and peanut butter.
There are several potential problems with this 'fix':
* higher quality foods can often be more expensive
* cooking can be near-impossible for someone who works several jobs
* many poor live in 'food deserts' where mainly low quality, processed foods are available
Yet another approach that seeks similar, healthier results is to reward recipients for buying fruits and veggies (a 30% rebate) rather than prohibiting the purchase of unhealthy foods. **
** see HIP article, below
All these ideas require buy-in from store checkout clerks. This can be especially difficult for smaller stores whose inventory is not automated. One way around this problem would be to use the existing label requirement for organic foods, so that any product with an organic icon would qualify.
My own take:
* don't scale back benefits now, as the poor need all the help they can get
* do limit SNAP benefits to WIC categories and foods labeled 'organic'
* high quality food = more expensive -- sorry, a bag of rice and one of beans along with fresh fruits and veggies is going to be fairly cheap
* grant waivers for those working more than 40-hour weeks
* grant waivers for low-mobility recipients
* implement the 30% rebate for fresh fruits and veggies
Politically, there might actually be room for agreement on a package like this. Democrats would succeed in retaining near-current funding levels and a new 30% off for produce. Republicans would claim victory too; their expectation, most likely, would be that once eligible food is limited to the nutritious, there's sure to be a decrease in program participation.
The Problem
Background information
HIP article
