The House Republicans proposed to cut $2 billion a year for
ten years from food stamps (a “drastic” 3% cut fro0m the $80 billion program). The
Senate passed on a bipartisan basis a much smaller reduction over the same
period. House Republicans understood that they could not pass a farm bill that
included $2 billion annual cuts in food stamps, so the House tried but failed
to pass a farm bill without food stamps, hoping to pass a separate food stamp
bill later. Liberal Democrats condemned the House action in unison, claiming falsely
House Republicans wanted to wipe out the food stamp program entirely.
The liberal blogosphere condemns any cut in food stamps on
the grounds that poor hungry people, especially children, are hurt and that
food stamps have become an essential (and apparently permanent) stimulus to
keep our economy moving.
Currently, 48 million people receive food stamps, 17 million
of which are classified by the USDA as families with very low food security, of
which 5 million are children. The USDA’s “very low food security measure” is
its feeble attempt to measure the number of hungry Americans.
The accompanying chart (taken directly from the
Congressional Budget Office) provides some perspective on where we stand:
The chart shows that, in past years, the number of
recipients and spending on food stamps move with the business cycle, as
measured by the unemployment rate. However, starting in 2001, food stamp spending
and participation rose despite low unemployment due to the use of EBT credit
cards and enhanced enrollment efforts. (Thank you, George W. Bush?) Both enrollment
and spending soared with the recession of 2008, but did not moderate with the
recovery that began in late 2009/early 2010. Both food stamp spending and
participation doubled between 2007
and the present!
Those who oppose any cuts in the food stamps program argue
that food stamp spending and participation were driven up by the recession and
we still need an extra boost. If so, they should accept the fact that food
stamps should decline as the recovery continues. The chart shows that the CBO
expects food stamp spending to drop by $11 billion over the next decade, and
the number of recipients to fall by 13 million people (under current
legislation) as a consequence of the economic recovery.
Using CBO projections, Congress should prepare for
reductions in the food stamp program. Using the CBO figures, Congress should
budget slightly over $1 billion less per year over the next decade even without
any changes in food stamp rules. Although opponents of food stamp cuts warn
that some 2 million people will lose coverage as a result of the proposed House
bill, the CBO projects that a much larger 13 million will lose coverage as the
recovery proceeds without any changes in the way food stamps are administered.
Let us remember that food stamps are an entitlement that is
supposed to increase during bad economic times and decrease during good
economic times. Supposedly, we are in a recovery, or at least that is what we
are told.
Those who oppose any reduction in the number of
beneficiaries and benefits paid have lost sight of the meaning of entitlements,
just as those who argue for permanent stimulus have forgotten the basics of
Keynesian economics. Instead of accepting the reductions that are supposed to
accompany a recovery, they are making new arguments. One is that food stamps
really do not fight hunger. Rather food stamps fight obesity, especially among
children. (I do not know how food stamps affect recipients’ choice of food.
Please enlighten me). Obesity is a growing problem, so we need more food
stamps. Second, they argue that we need food stamps as a disguised form of
stimulus, without which the recovery is jeopardized.
I guess obesity and deficient stimulus will always be with
us. Therefore let’s have no cuts in food stamps.
In googling material for this piece, I found that the first
40 posts argued against any food stamps cuts of any kind and warned of
horrendous consequences of cuts. I ran across a vast array of groups and
lobbyists with vested interests in food stamps. I did not find one article
supporting the food stamps cuts that must come according to the CBO. The one exception
was an attack on Lou Dobbs for venturing to say food stamps need to be cut.
We have no lobby for cutting government spending. Let’s hope
the Tea Party gets animated again. This is a good issue for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment