Food stamps becomes political bone of contention in US

Washington

AS A padlocked economy leaves millions of Americans without pay cheques, lines outside food banks have stretched for miles, prompting some of the overwhelmed charities to seek help from the National Guard.

New research shows a rise in food insecurity without modern precedent. Among mothers with young children, nearly one-fifth said their children are not getting enough to eat, according to a survey by the Brookings Institution, a rate three times as high as in 2008, during the worst of the Great Recession.

The reality of so many Americans running out of food is an alarming reminder of the economic hardship the pandemic has inflicted. But despite their support for spending trillions on other programmes to mitigate those hardships, Republicans have baulked at a long-term expansion of food stamps - a core feature of the safety net that once enjoyed broad support but is now a source of a highly partisan divide.

Democrats want to raise food stamp benefits by 15 per cent for the duration of the economic crisis, arguing that a similar move during the Great Recession reduced hunger and helped the economy. But Republicans have fought for years to shrink the programme, saying that the earlier liberalisation led to enduring caseload growth and a backdoor expansion of the welfare state.

For President Donald Trump, a personal rivalry may also be in play. In his State of the Union address in February, he boasted that falling caseloads showed him besting his predecessor, Barack Obama, whom Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, had derided as "the food stamp president". Even as the pandemic unfolded, the Trump administration tried to push forward with new work rules projected to remove more people from aid.

Mr Trump and his congressional allies have agreed to only a short-term increase in food stamp benefits that omits the poorest recipients, including five million children. Those calling for a broader increase said Congress has spent an unprecedented amount on programmes invented on the fly while rejecting a proven way to keep hungry people fed.

"This programme is the single most powerful anti-hunger tool that we have, and one of the most important economic development tools," said Kate Maehr, the executive director and CEO of the Greater Chicago Food Depository. "Not to use it when we have so many people who are in such great need is heartbreaking. This is not a war that charity can win."

The debate in Congress is about the size of benefits, not the numbers on the rolls. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, as food stamps are also known, expands automatically to accommodate need.

"SNAP is working, SNAP will increase," said Representative Michael Conaway of Texas, the top Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees the programme. "Anyone who qualifies is going to get those benefits. We do not need new legislation."

Mr Conaway noted that Republicans have supported huge spending on other programmes to temper the economic distress, and increased benefits for some SNAP recipients (for the duration of the health emergency, not the economic downturn). Democrats, he said, want to leverage the pandemic into a permanent food stamp expansion.

"I'm a little bit jaded," he said. "The last time we did this, those changes were sold as being temporary - when unemployment improved, the rolls would revert back. That didn't happen."

Rejecting what he called the Democrats' narrative of "hard-hearted Republicans", he warned against tempting people to become dependent on government aid. "I don't want to create a moral hazard for people to be on welfare."

Food stamp supporters said the programme is well suited for the crisis because it targets the poor, and benefits can be easily adjusted since recipients get them on a debit card. The money gets quickly spent and supplies a basic need.

During the Great Recession, Congress increased maximum benefits by about 14 per cent and let states suspend work rules. Caseloads soared. By the time the rolls peaked in 2013, nearly 20 million people had joined the programme, an increase of nearly 70 per cent, and one in seven Americans received food stamps, including millions with no other income.

Supporters saw a model response. The share of families suffering "very low food security" - essentially, hunger - fell after the benefit expanded (and rose once the increase expired). Analysts at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Arloc Sherman and Danilo Trisi, found that in 2012 the programme lifted 10 million people out of poverty.

"This is what you want a safety net to do - expand in times of crisis," said Diane Schanzenbach, an economist at Northwestern University.

But a backlash quickly followed, as a weak recovery and efforts to increase participation kept the rolls much higher than they had been before the recession.

Republican governors reinstated work rules for childless adults, and one of them, Sam Brownback of Kansas, succeeded in pushing three-quarters of that population from the rolls. A new conservative think-tank, the Foundation for Government Accountability, said the policy "freed" the poor and urged others to follow. By the time Mr Trump introduced his brand of conservative populism, scepticism of food stamps was part of the movement's genome.

Food stamps remain central to the American safety net - costing much more (US$60 billion) than cash aid and covering many more people (38 million). To qualify, a household must have an income of 130 per cent of the poverty line or less, about US$28,000 for three people. Before the pandemic, the average household had a total income of just over US$10,000 and received a benefit of about US$239 a month. NYTIMES