What Are the Facts Behind the Food Stamp Debate
As the presidential election season intensifies, one subject that has been moved from obscurity to the forefront is the availability of “food stamps” for American families. Much like the old “welfare” debate of the 1990’s which essentially ended when welfare reform went into place in the Clinton administration, the food stamp program became a presumed symbol of over government subsidization for the poor. Also questions arise whether people are receiving benefits who should not be and/ or that products or purchases are unacceptable. In order to determine just what is happening with “food stamps,” I set out to do some research of my own.
First, “food stamps” are not stamps now nor does the program go by that name. In 2008, the name was changed to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP and payment is received by an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) or debit card. The program is administered on the federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
While the SNAP program starts with federal dollars, it is administered by the States and the States have some important discretion in how the funds are provided. This has become more of an issue lately in Pennsylvania which will be discussed later.
The amount of the benefit depends on family size and income. Generally, the benefit can provide about $1.00 to $4.00 per meal for those who qualify. The original federal asset requirements which are very low have been waived by many states so income or the lack of it becomes the primary qualifying factor.
It is generally acknowledged that the program first swelled during the Bush administration and then increased again during the Obama administration following the downturn in the economy. In absolute numbers, there was a greater increase in participants during the Bush administration than during the Obama administration. According to the Department of Agriculture, during the Bush Administration, about 14.7 million people were added to the eligibility list. During the Obama administration, the number given was 14.2 million. It is also generally accepted that the poor economy, coupled with many on unemployment who now qualified for benefits, increased its numbers substantially. There are some signs, based on the October, 2011 figures that increase in applications for help have decreased.
While the program has many variations by State, according to a 2010 Survey by the Department of Agriculture, it seems that of every food stamp dollar spent, about 49 cents may go to families with children, 20 cents or less to the elderly, and 15 cents to the disabled. Until recently a person who was not a parent with children in the household and not disabled could collect under the SNAP program only 3 months out of any 36 month period. Now a single person enrolled in certain work programs can qualify.
Fraud in the sense of benefits going to unqualified persons has been estimated in various publications as reduced to between 1 and 3%. The Department of Agriculture contracts with an outside firm to analyze food stamp purchases and monitor electronic transactions to deal with fraud and the system has received generally good grades. The food stamp program itself excludes hot and prepared food, cigarettes, alcohol, personal care items, paper commodities, pet food, household supplies and medications. Problems are with trading for cash or purchases of inappropriate items.
In Pennsylvania, the Rendell administration eliminated the “asset test” in 2008 in response to the wave of unemployed so that people did not have to first plow through their savings in order to receive food. Recently, the Corbett administration proposed bringing back the asset test effective May 1, 2012. As of that date, Pennsylvanians under age 60 with more than $2,000 in liquid assets (basically cash savings) and those over age 60 with more than $3,250 would be denied benefits for food. This leaves the question what people with assets that are that low enough to qualify for food would do to be able to pay real estate taxes, medical bills, medications, home repairs, transportation and utilities, among other essential expenditures. It would seem that, in the movement to hold down government costs, reining in payment for food may not be the first place to go.
For more, listen to “50+ Planning Ahead” a weekly radio program on WCHE 1520 on every Wednesday from 4:30 pm to 5:00 pm with Janet Colliton, Colliton Law Assocs., PC, and Phil McFadden of Home Instead Senior Care.
About the Author Janet Colliton
Esquire, Colliton Law Associates, P.C. Janet Colliton has practiced law for over 38 years, 37 of them in Chester County, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. Her practice, Colliton Law Associates, PC, is limited to elder law, Medicaid, including advice, applications and appeals, and other benefits planning including Veterans benefits, life care and special needs planning, guardianships, retirement, and estate planning and administration.