Too often, the power to make decisions that substantially affect the way people live their lives rests in the hands of those who have never had to do without.
A group of Democratic members of Congress are trying to counter this trend by spending a week living off a paltry $4.50 a day, the average budget for an American citizen on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.
The “SNAP challenge” is a protest against the House Agriculture Committee’s proposed farm bill, which would cut $20 billion from the food stamps program over the next 10 years and would end food assistance to 2 million Americans (the Senate version of the bill would cut $4.1 billion over 10 years.)
U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., told Politico: “This is something that affects so many of our constituents. But you know around here, this is a city of lobbyists who definitely aren’t eating on $4.50 a day.”
The SNAP challenge is quite obviously a gimmick; no one could possibly argue that point. But it personalizes a political issue that has a real impact on people who may not have the time or the means to bring their concerns to policymakers.
Many politicians deplore the so-called “welfare state” and blame the web of social programs and those who rely on government assistance for myriad social problems. Why do they so desperately want to cut food stamps?
“My goal is simple, to restore integrity to the supplemental food assistance program,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., whose amendment cutting an additional $12 billion from SNAP failed in the Senate by a vote of 40 to 58.
“Integrity” in this case would refer to the SNAP boogeyman that keeps Republican politicians up at night: the moocher living off of our hard-earned tax dollars, refusing to work or do anything that might benefit society.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 45 percent of the 47 million SNAP recipients are children, while 22 percent are non-elderly, non-disabled adults with children. Another 19 percent are elderly or disabled. A full 96 percent of new recipients of SNAP began or continued to work after they started to receive the benefits. This hardly sounds like the profile of the mooching and "undeserving poor."
In trying to eliminate government spending, elected officials in the House and the Senate have taken to cutting budgets bluntly and almost indiscriminately, with no eye for how cuts might prove counterproductive in the end. Cutting SNAP or Pell grants or unemployment insurance won’t put much of dent, if any, in the federal budget deficit or the federal debt.
While each of the budgets for these programs may run in the millions or even billions of dollars, cutting food stamps to solve long-term fiscal problems is as effective as trying to use a herring to chop down the mightiest tree in the forest.
The SNAP challenge may be a self-aggrandizing gimmick for members of Congress, but at its heart, it's a sorely needed reminder that politicians serve the American people and not the budget.
How can representatives and senators truly represent the American people if they are so wildly out of touch to think cutting $20 billion from food aid will somehow alleviate budget problems and not hurt those Americans who rely on a little extra help?
Tell Savannah about your budget solutions at skthoma4@asu.edu or follow her on Twitter @SavannahKThomas
