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.



Lots of good comments on this subject. I know some one who gets food stamps,lives with her dad who makes $70,000 per year. Do I think this is right? No. Do I think that there are people out there who really need help? Yes, but as long as the government doesn't distinquish between them, I will continue to not support this program. I will however, continue to give to the ones I KNOW who needs help.


If she receives food stamps with a 70k annual salary she is committing
fraud! Her dad probably gets the stamps!


Re: "know some one who gets food stamps,lives with her dad who makes $70,000 per year."

Reads like a case of fraud.

Time to send out a highly compensated taxpayer funded bureaucrat and check this out!

If ONLY the Feds would hire hundreds, MAYBE thousands more highly compensated taxpayer-funded bureaucrats; perhaps billions in waste, fraud and abuse would no longer exist in the SNAP program.


Thank you for letting me know. I am not for sure if they still get them, but was told by the dad that she did. Now I am wondering if this is fraud, isn't the fact that someone is on welfare but lives with a person who has a job also fraud? Just questioning. I have been lucky in my life that I have always found a job and never had to use either service.


Her fathers income should be accounted for as. Household income. Your friend must be LYING on the application


After two years of being on food stamps due to job loss, next month we will no longer be on the program because I have finally found a job that will support my family. In that two years, I went back to school (full-time) while raising my kids and shopping carefully to stay within our budget. I never looked at the program as a long-term solution. I realize that puts me in the minority, but to those tax payers that helped support us through this difficult transition, thank you. Now, I'm happy to get back to working and doing my part and paying taxes.


Thank yourself too. Before you lost your job you were paying taxes and when you needed help you rightfully received it. I don't think you are in the minority. I believe most people don't want to be on food stamps forever but they do need to eat forever. Do the elderly and disabled really have a choice? The jobs are just not there. Also, most people receiving stamps have a job!


99 million dollars in food stamps were used by military families.
i hate what that says about our country. shame on anyone that would try and take foodstamps away from a military family. there are so many circumstances why a family would need help. i don't believe that any of us have the right to decide who gets them or what they buy with them.

AJ Oliver

Second Harvest Food Bank does great work in getting food to area struggling folks. They have a fund raiser coming up, and deserve our support.
But we STILL need food stamps, a program that has a MUCH lower rate of fraud than other federal programs. Lots of big-time agricultural interests cheat like hell on the farm program.
Why don't the righties go after them ? Answer, because they are not poor.




Re: "Lots of big-time agricultural interests cheat like hell on the farm program. Why don't the righties go after them ?"

How about those "Lefties" like Tom Harkin (D-IA) and other good Dems from farm states???



The Big Dog's back

pooh, what about him? C'mon, make another moronic statement.


Warren Buffett:

“The Fed is the greatest hedge fund in history,”

See, no need to raise taxes on ANYONE. No need to cut entitlements on ANYONE.

H*ll, raise the Federal debt ceiling by a couple trillion dollars!

Who knew that it was 'so' simple that the U.S. can just have "The Bernank" leverage the country to prosperity?

SNAP cards for the masses!!!

Hedge funds never go bust do they? :)

The Big Dog's back

pooh couldn't stay on topic if his life depended on it.


Re: "couldn't stay on topic"

So where's the money gonna come from to help fund the ever increasing transfer of payments and entitlement programs schmuck?


Topic? What's that?

AJ Oliver

Would it be too much to ask the Righties to stick to the topic of the article? They might get motivated to do so if they had the guts to post under their own names. But for them, cojones are in short supply.
Warren Buffett, BTW, gets all kinds of welfare.


Re: "Would it be too much to ask the Righties to stick to the topic of the article?"

Money is fungible.

What the h*ll do you think has been majorly responsible for keeping this economy afloat these past 5 yrs?

And what's the topic anyway? Isn't it that those EVIL Repubs wanna starve children by cutting SNAP funding?

If you wanna increase or maintain funding, where's the money gonna come from?

What's wrong with getting it from the Federal Reserve?

What's your answer?

Yea, but "Warren," a Lefty favorite, is one of those kinder-gentler rich people, not like those other EVIL "Righty" one percenters.

As I give a sh*t about your "real name," mine should not matter to you.


The one side of aisle accuses the other side of starving people. Think about this --- the obesity problem in the USA. Lots and lots of empty calories being bought on SNAP cards. Too bad the hyprocitic left has no stones to revamp SNAP and require healthier purchases instead of sodie pops, chips and candy.

The Big Dog's back

You're right, you don't know much. It would take more food stamps to purchase healthy foods.


Re: "It would take more food stamps to purchase healthy foods."

So where's the money gonna come from to help fund expansion of the program schmuck?




deer & dog,

Less government and more personal responsibility is Right ?


How about more businesses hiring people ?


Re: "How about more businesses hiring people ?"

"Why Companies Aren't Hiring Now":

Maybe the govt. should just hire ALL the unemployed, OR "the Bernank" could just cut a $50K check for every American and say: Have fun spending!!!


"Budget Office Warns That Deficits Will Rise Again Because Cuts Are Misdirected":

"Budget experts have been warning since at least the Reagan era that in the early 21st century, aging baby boomers will drive entitlement spending — chiefly for Medicare and Medicaid, and to a lesser degree for Social Security — to levels that will crowd out all other military and domestic spending.

Interest on the debt will also be a major and growing expense."

Didja catch that from above?

It "...will crowd out all other...domestic spending."

Pres. Obama ORDERED the bi-partisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles) and then promptly IGNORED their recommendations!

Again: Want more and bigger spending for food stamps?

Simple: Just have the Federal Reserve manufacture assets outa thin air and buy more U.S. Treasuries (IOUs) to help fund increased spending.

The Big Dog's back

So we borrowed from those funds, Repubs and Dems, so we could lower taxes on the wealthy, and now you don't want to pay it back?

The Big Dog's back

So we let the rich "keep more of their money", and what has that gotten the rest of us?


Re: "we let the rich,"

YOU'VE “let” them do squat dunce.

The Federal Reserve through ZIRP and QE is helping to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.