Food stamps again a vivid symbol in poverty debate

House votes to cut almost $4 billion a year from food stamps, a 5 percent reduction to the nation's main feeding program used by more than 1 in 7 Americans.
Associated Press
Sep 21, 2013

Food stamps have figured in Americans' ideas about the poor for decades, from President Lyndon Johnson's vision of a Great Society to President Ronald Reagan's scorn for crooked "welfare queens" and President Bill Clinton's pledge to "end welfare as we know it."

Partisans tend to see what they want to see in the food stamp program: barely enough bread and milk to sustain hungry children, or chips and soda — maybe even steak and illicit beer — for cheaters and layabouts gaming the system.

Those differences were on display Thursday when the House voted to cut almost $4 billion a year, or 5 percent, from the roughly $80 billion-a-year program.

The House bill would tighten eligibility standards, allow states to impose new work requirements and permit drug testing for recipients, among other cuts to spending. A Senate bill would cut around one-tenth of the amount of the House bill, or $400 million a year.

Republicans argued that work requirements target the aid to the neediest people. Democrats said the swelling rolls — more than 47 million people are now using the food stamps, or 1 in 7 Americans — show that the program is working at a time of high unemployment and great need.

A look at the history and future of food stamps:


These days, people in the nation's largest food aid program pay with plastic.

These special debit cards are swiped at convenience store or supermarket checkouts to pay for groceries. The cards can't be used for alcohol or cigarettes or nonfood items such as toothpaste, paper towels or dog chow. Junk food or high-priced treats are OK.

The first food stamps were a temporary plan to help feed the hungry toward the end of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The government subsidized the cost of blue stamps that poor people used to buy food from farm surpluses.

The idea was revived in the 1960s and expanded under Johnson into a permanent program that sold food coupons to low-income people at a discount. Beginning in the 1970s, food stamps were given to the poor for free. Benefit cards began replacing paper in the 1980s, a move designed to reduce fraud and ease the embarrassment food stamp users felt at the cash register.

Food stamps aren't the government's only way to feed those in need. There are more than a dozen smaller programs, including the one for Women, Infants and Children, and free and reduced-price school lunches.

In 2008, food stamps were officially renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Most people still know the name that's been familiar since 1939.


In a nation of 314 million people, more than 47 million are eating with food stamps each month.

Who are they? Children and teenagers make up almost half, according to the Agriculture Department. About 10 percent are seniors.

The vast majority don't receive any cash welfare. Many households that shop with SNAP cards have someone who's employed but qualify for help because of low earnings.

The average food stamp allotment is $133 a person per month. The monthly amount a family gets depends on the household's size, earnings and expenses, as well as changing food prices and other factors.

Households can qualify for help with earnings up to 30 percent higher than the federal poverty level, making the limit about $30,000 for a family of four this year. These households are limited to no more than $2,000 in savings, or $3,250 if there are elderly or disabled residents.

In addition, most states allow people to qualify automatically for food stamps if they are eligible for certain other welfare programs, even if they don't meet the strict SNAP standards. Although food stamps are paid for with federal tax dollars, states administer the program and have some choices in setting requirements.

Language in Clinton's 1996 welfare overhaul required able-bodied adults who aren't raising children to work or attend job training or similar programs to qualify for food stamps after three months. But those work requirements across most of the nation have been waived for several years because of the high unemployment rate.

People who are living in the United States illegally aren't eligible for food stamps. Most adults who immigrate legally aren't eligible during their first five years in the country.


The cost to taxpayers more than doubled over just four years, from $38 billion in 2008 to $78 billion last year.

Liberals see a program responding to rising need at a time of economic turmoil. Conservatives see out-of-control spending, and many Republicans blame President Barack Obama. While seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, Newt Gingrich labeled Obama the "food stamp president."

Some of the growth can be attributed to Obama's food stamp policies, but Congress' budget analysts blame most of it on the economy.

The big factors:

—The SNAP program is an entitlement, meaning everyone who is eligible can get aid, no matter the cost to taxpayers.

—Millions of jobs were lost in the recession that hit in 2007. Unemployment is still high, and many people who have jobs are working fewer hours or for lower pay than before, meaning more people are eligible.

—Obama's 2009 economic stimulus temporarily increased benefit amounts; that boost is set to expire on Nov. 1. Time limits for jobless adults without dependents are still being waived in most of the country.

—Food stamp eligibility requirements were loosened by Congress in 2002 and 2008, before Obama became president.

—Fluctuating food prices have driven up monthly benefit amounts, which are based on a low-cost diet.


The number of people using food stamps appears to be leveling off this year, and long-term budget projections suggest the number will begin to fall as the economy improves.

Why is it taking so long? Although the jobless rate has dropped from its 2009 peak, it remains high, leaving a historically large number of people eligible for food stamps. Since the recession began, a bigger portion of people who are eligible have signed up for food stamps than in the past.

Many people who enrolled during the worst days of the recession still qualify for SNAP cards, even if they are doing a little better now. For example, they may have gone from being laid off to working a low-paying or part-time job.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts in about a decade the number of people using food stamps will drop to 34 million, or about 1 in every 10 people.


Abuse was a worry from the start. The 1939 food stamp program was launched in May and by that October a retailer had been caught violating the rules.

There's been progress along the way, especially after the nationwide adoption of SNAP cards, which are harder to sell for cash than paper coupons were. The government says such "trafficking" in food stamps has fallen significantly over the past two decades, from about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to a penny per dollar in 2008.

But many lawmakers say fraud is still costing taxpayers too much. Some people lie about their income, apply for benefits in multiple states or fail to quit the program when their earnings go up. Recipients must tell their state agency within 10 days if their income goes over the limit.

Some stores illegally accept food stamps to pay for other merchandise, even beer or electronics, or give out cash at a cut rate in exchange for phony food purchases, which are then reimbursed by the government.


In Congress, it's a marriage of convenience.

Food stamp policy has been packaged in the same bill with farm subsidies and other agricultural programs since the 1970s. It was a canny way of assuring that urban lawmakers who wanted the poverty program would vote for farm spending. That worked until this year, when conservatives balked at the skyrocketing cost of food stamps.

In June, a farm bill that included food stamps was defeated in the Republican-led House because fiscal conservatives felt it didn't cut the program deeply enough.

In response, GOP leaders split the food and farm programs in two. The House passed the farm version in July and the food stamp version on Thursday. Both passed with narrow votes.

The House and Senate versions must be reconciled before the five-year farm bill can become law, and that won't be an easy task.

Food stamps remain in the farm bill passed by the Senate. That bill made only a half-percent cut to food stamps and the Democratic-led Senate will be reluctant to cut more deeply or to evict the poverty program from its home in the farm bill. Obama supported the cuts in the Senate bill, but has opposed any changes beyond that. The White House threatened to veto the House food stamp bill.


The current farm and food law expires at the end of the month.

If the two sides can't agree by then, a likely scenario, Congress could vote to extend the law as it is, at the expense of many planned updates to agricultural policy. There won't be much urgency to do that until the end of the year, when some dairy supports expire and milk prices could rise.

Other farm supports won't expire until next year, but farmers have been frustrated with the drawn-out debate that has now lasted two years, saying they need more government certainty as they manage their farm operations.

SNAP benefits would still be available for now. While farm bills set food stamp policy, the money is paid out through annual appropriations bills that so far have left benefits intact.



I'm sure most people don't begrudge those who truly need the program to get back on their feet from some type of setback.

The rub is when the use of this program has become a generational accepted lifestyle. The program was designed to be temporary in nature not entitlement. And, with any large government run program the abuse is beyond anyone's scope.

It's time to reduce government on all levels.


Re: "The cost to taxpayers (was)...$78 billion last year."

And fraud only amounted to, "a penny per dollar in 2008."

Why heck, that's ONLY $780 million that taxpayers are being scammed!

Let's not bother figuring in the additional tens of billions of dollars that can probably be attributed to waste and abuse.

Pres. Obama and the Congressional Democrats, just need to tell "The Bernank" (blessed be his name) to kick up those Federal Reserve printing presses and fund any and all increases.

SNAP cards for the masses!!!

Think of all those new Democrat party voters that it will buy.


Re: "Economists say that providing food stamps might be the most stimulative action the government can take. Tax cuts for the wealthy ranks around 12th."

Great article!

Like I wrote: Have "The Bernank" crank up the presses and "print" trillions of dollars more.

SNAP for the masses!

Let's tax, print, borrow and spend, spend, spend this economy into prosperity with more and more food stamps!


Yeah, think of all the CONservative votes you will buy! We all know that cutting taxes for the wealthy hardly stimulates anything but their own bank accounts! Thanks for pointing that out though!


Re: "cutting taxes for the wealthy hardly stimulates anything but their own bank accounts!"

Yea, that's correct. Those rich one percenters that live around DC, only hoard their money in a shoe box under their bed or on a shelf closet, right?

The Big Dog's back

Another moronic statement by pooh.


Don’t worry lil’ pup, no one will ever come close to breaking your record. :)

AJ Oliver

The Righties stand up and cheer when kids go hungry. Shame on them !!
Meanwhile, they just love welfare for the ONE PERCENT such as hundreds of millions for the CLE Browns. And they'd never dare suggest that Walmart pay their employees enough so they would not need food stamps. Part of Walmart's employee training is showing them how to apply for food stamps - so the business model is that the taxpayers subsidize the Walton family billionaires. Gag me !!
Corn ethanol is another great example of welfare for the wealthy - it's a giant scam.

From the center for budget & policy . .
Who gets food stamps?
The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program's beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

••47% of beneficiaries were children under age 18.

••8% were age 60 or older.

••41% lived in a household with earnings from a job -- the so-called "working poor."

••The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.

••36% were white (non-Hispanic), 22% were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10% were Hispanic. [USA Today, 1/18/12, emphasis original]


Boycott Walmart and football then! It would be a good start.


Re: "they just love welfare for the ONE PERCENT,"

So no "Lefties" can be counted among the Politcal Ruling Class?

So no "Lefties" live in the DC suburbs which (according to 2011 stats) contain 7 of the top 10 richest U.S. counties?

So 7 of the 10 richest Congressional representatives aren't Democrats?

Reads more like you're presenting a fallacious wrongheaded partisan argument, rather than coming to grips with any form of reality.


So for you, "The Bernank's" "trickle-down" monetary policy ain't working too well?

Maybe time to "print" trillions more!


That's what you got from the article??? Exactly why I almost never post links!


Re: "That's what you got from the article???"

And that article had what to do with my response to AJ Oliver's comment about welfare for the one percenters?

Besides, who in the h*ll do you think is benefiting the most from the Federal Reserves' ZIRP and QE policies?

Nothing more "magical" than producing "wealth" outa thin air and helping make the rich richer is there?

There you go again

When have "the Righties" stood up and cheered when someone went hungry?

You are spewing lies just like our president. Stop believing everything you hear in the media.


If you really believe that those are the only people getting food stamps, you are a naive ignoramous and so is the govenment, but then we already knew they were stupid.

The Big Dog's back

The Repubs new strategy? Starve them into voting for us.




Another nail in their coffin.

What say you , From the Grave ?



Kids are dying around the world from hunger. Why don't you start a movement that all of our citizens on food stamps donate 10% of their entitlement to those who have less.

Shame on you and those on entitlement for not taking care of those in need.


What do you do to help the hungry kids around the world?



When do you want to sit down and discuss what we each do for local and other citizens of the world?

I will match up my personal participation in improving the human race against yours any day.

If I don't match up to your participation I will apologize to you on this website.


Apology accepted! Now answer the question!


Re: "What do you do to help the hungry kids around the world?"

"United States foreign aid":

Plus, I often buy foreign made products which help support their families and them.

Why, what do you do?


Quit lying pooh! You don't buy foreign made products to help feed the hungry around the world. You buy them because they, like you, are cheap! Nice try WRONG guy!


Re: "foreign made products,"

The reason doesn't matter Bambie, it helps give foreign people jobs so that they can improve their quality of life - it's called capitalism.

Again: What do you do?



What my wife and I do is personal and we do not wish to share with the masses. But, I'm willing to meet you and give you a brief overview of our participation. I'm sure you will be discreet in not passing on our involvement.

When can we get together?


We make a very good living. I do not for one minute begrudge helping others when it comes to things like food. There are too many people struggling out there. Even many college-educated people are working only part-time or low paying jobs right now. As long as my family is blessed (and lucky!), we will continue to support the less fortunate with basic human needs.


Thank you! We don't punish the poor in this country for being poor!