“Food Stamp” Cuts and the Budget Debate

Millions of low income Americans today receive federal assistance in obtaining food for their families or themselves. The most popular program for this is colloquially known as the Food Stamp Program, although the name was changed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008.
This past Friday, November 1, signaled a change in public policy towards SNAP. An expected 47 million Americans are receiving less federal assistance from the SNAP due to $5 billion worth of cuts that will reduce the size of the program throughout the year. These cuts are due and to be expected because of the Great Recession’s waning effects and the underlying economics of the program, but this decision should not serve as a basis for drastic additional cuts.
SNAP Criticisms and Recent Presidential Trends 
Why would political leaders want to cut back from a program that facilitates access to food for the more impoverished parts of the country? Critics of certain aspects of SNAP cite both its huge cost and the increasing number of participants in the program. When assessing criticisms to the program, cuts should be understood as a return to normal levels of food stamp availability, since SNAP availability expanded temporarily under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Many of the criticisms against the increase of food stamps are leveled against President Obama. For instance, Republican politician Newt Gingrich commented that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” Such a misleading criticism may reinforce the idea that the president is undermining American individuality while expanding dependence on public welfare. However, one should reasonably expect the beneficiaries of food stamps to proliferate since the economy underwent a severe recession. It should not be surprising that the amount of people requiring federal assistance increased because low income earners are struggling financially during a low point in the business cycle.
The claims that portray Obama as the Food Stamp President are only partially true. It is true that food stamp availability rose significantly under the Obama administration, a 70 percent increase from 2007 to 2011.  However, correlation does not equal causation, and it is misleading to place the entire blame on Obama as he does not have full control of program enrollment from Washington. Still, with regards to food stamps, Obama is more of a successor rather than a trendsetter. The previous president, George W. Bush, saw a huge increase in the availability of food stamps to the public, which essentially doubled under his leadership. Thus, both Bush and Obama’s terms have seen over double an increase in food stamp spending. It would be unfair to single out Obama as the only one in the White House to have expanded food stamps, as he followed in the footsteps of Bush rather than started the trend.
SNAP and the Broader Budget Debate 
With trends showing higher costs and more recipients of food stamps, the issue holds significance amidst talks of budget stability. The House of Representatives, with a Republican majority, proposed a massive $40 billion in cuts to the SNAP program, while the Democratic-leaning Senate’s plan presented cuts of only a few billion dollars.
With the American national debt at $17 trillion, and on the rise, out-of-control debt remains at the forefront of public policy debates. Although cuts to the SNAP program may lower government spending (at a very superficial level), a bipartisan approach needs to develop to seriously address the budget. If Congress cuts from low income programs, then it should cut from other federal programs, perhaps the ones forming the bulk of spending (not welfare). Conversely, one might argue that rather than making spending cuts, the government should raise taxes. However, it may be that a bit of both are needed.
SNAP, the Recession, and the Need for Bipartisanship 
Many Americans have experienced tough times and needed the help of someone else to get back up at one point or another. In the case of the recession, many low income earners needed a helping hand to provide for their families, and so logically SNAP recipients grew. Nonetheless, while budget cuts are made to SNAP, it is important to recognize that this is how the program was designed to work: in a Keynesian flavor, participants would greatly increase during times of recession and then decrease after a economic downturn because they would have more money in their pockets. Now that the economy, albeit fragile, is gradually improving, the “cuts” to the program would essentially return to previous levels of federal spending on SNAP.
As cuts are made to SNAP, Capitol Hill needs to tackle the government’s fiscal issues in the broader context. Certainly, now that the recession’s effects seem to be lessening, it is appropriate that cuts be made to the program and for Congress to consider additional cuts in the future if necessary, but the decision is not a justification for immediate and extremely severe cuts.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons