The perennial Republican proposal to convert food stamps into a block grant “would severely undermine” the anti-hunger program’s ability to respond immediately to economic downturns, says the American Enterprise Institute, an exponent of free enterprise. In a paper aimed at the 2018 farm bill, AEI says “the program could be strengthened by doing more to assist participants with finding employment and rewarding work.”
The paper says President Trump’s proposal to restrict access to food stamps by able-bodied adults “is extreme,” although “tightening of the eligibility standards somewhat may be warranted.” So-called ABAWDs, able-bodied adults without dependents, are limited to three months of benefits in a three-year period unless they work at least 80 hours a month or spend a similar amount of time in a workfare or job-training program. Trump proposed that waivers of the 90-day limit, granted during periods of high unemployment, should be allowed only in counties with a jobless rate above 10 percent.
Trump also proposed a 25-percent cut in food stamp funding, requiring states to pay a share of benefits, and tighter eligibility standards. The House Budget Committee wrote a spending blueprint this year that would give “significant authority to the states” over food stamps, akin to proposals in previous years for block grants.
Written by Northwestern University professor Diane Schanzenbach, the AEI paper says food stamps, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, “currently works quite well” because it automatically expands during hard times and contracts as employment and wages improve. “Block granting the program would fundamentally undermine the program’s stabilizing impact on the macro-economy.”
The paper said a moderate increase in the so-called earned-income disregard “will strengthen the incentive to work for all SNAP recipients.” At present, when the government computes benefits, 20 cents is subtracted in the calculation of a household’s net income for each $1 in earnings. The “disregard” is intended to offset costs, such as commuting, faced by working families. There is concern the 20-percent disregard is too low. A 30-percent disregard would increase benefits by an average $40 a month for households with income, or $2.7 billion a year, according to CBO. “This would further increase the incentives to work among SNAP recipients and increase food purchasing power for families with workers,” said AEI.
Conversely, according to the paper, proposals to set a lower income limit on eligibility, or deny benefits to households with high expenses but also a gross income above the usual cut-off level, would make it harder for people to move up the economic ladder.
Seven percent of food stamp recipients are ABAWDs with an average monthly benefit of $160. “In most of the United States, this is the only safety net program available to this population.” The narrow definition of work — 20 hours a week at a job, in workfare or in job training — does not count time spent in searching for work. “The rules may undermine states’ abilities to craft work requirements that are better tailored to their needs — including local economic conditions and available education and job-training programs.”
Congress may want to consider changes to the definition of work, such as including time spent looking for employment or enrollment in job-training programs that run less than 20 hours a week.
Two innovations deserve consideration for the farm bill, said the paper. One is nationwide use of a clearinghouse to prevent enrollment in food stamps in more than one state. The other is a “work number” service that verifies employment and wages. Both would reduce error rates and fraud.
In March, House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway said he wanted the 2018 farm bill to toughen work rules for ABAWDs. “Work is going to be a big deal for people who are otherwise able to do it,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a farm conference. Conaway said he would examine the waivers that allow states to give food stamps to ABAWDs for more than 90 days. “We want to make sure that this makes sense, that the policy is correct.” A requirement for work training “is entirely appropriate if in fact they are going to get help from taxpayers.” Better job skills “is a big piece of that.”
Nutrition advocates such as Bread for the World say food-stamp benefits are paltry and an increase would be an investment in national well-being.
At latest USDA count, 41.3 million people were enrolled in food stamps with an average benefit of $125 a person.